GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between these two cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisively lopsided. The AMD Instinct MI100 scores 139,035, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 manages 108,245. That is a 28.4% advantage for the MI100. This is not a marginal victory; it is a substantial gap that defines the entire comparison. For context, the MI100 sits 0.7% above the NVIDIA Tesla V100 PCIe 16 GB and 0.9% above the Tesla V100 SXM2 32 GB in the same test. The W7700, by contrast, trails the NVIDIA GB10 by 1.3% and the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 1.6%.

The W7700 does have a Vulkan score of 129,706, but the MI100 has no Vulkan result listed. So in the only head-to-head metric available, the MI100 wins outright. The data shows a single win for the MI100 and zero for the W7700. That does not mean the W7700 is a poor card, it means that in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL, the older datacenter accelerator simply outmuscles the newer workstation GPU.

What is more telling is how each card fares relative to its own peer group. The MI100's 139,035 score places it in the 96th percentile of all GPUs. The W7700's average score of 118,976 (combining its OpenCL and Vulkan results) lands it in the 95th percentile. On a percentile basis, they are nearly identical. But raw scores tell a different story: the MI100 is 16.9% ahead of the W7700's average across both of its benchmarks. If you focus purely on OpenCL, the MI100's lead stretches to that 28.4% figure. The takeaway is clear, when compute is the priority, the MI100 is the stronger card by a wide margin.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher raw compute throughput?

A: The AMD Instinct MI100 delivers 23.07 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 reaches 31.95 TFLOPS. Despite the W7700's higher FP32 figure, the MI100 wins the OpenCL benchmark by 28.4%. This suggests the MI100's architecture is better optimized for the specific workloads in that test.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The MI100 uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, achieving 1.23 TB/s of bandwidth. The W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s. The MI100 more than doubles the W7700's memory bandwidth, which is critical for large datasets.

Q: What is the maximum power draw for each card?

A: The MI100 has a TDP of 300 W and requires two 8-pin power connectors with a suggested 700 W power supply. The W7700 has a TDP of 190 W, needs a single 8-pin connector, and suggests a 450 W power supply. The W7700 is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Can the MI100 output video to displays?

A: No. The MI100 has no display outputs. The W7700, in contrast, offers four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it suitable for direct monitor connection.

Q: Which card supports modern graphics APIs?

A: The W7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI100 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for graphics rendering in those APIs.

Q: How do their launch dates and production statuses differ?

A: The MI100 was released on 2020-11-15 and is marked as end-of-life. The W7700 was released on 2023-11-12 and has no production status listed, implying it is still current. The W7700 also has a launch MSRP of 999 USD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is fundamental. The MI100 uses the Arcturus chip built on CDNA 1.0, a compute-focused design. The W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip on RDNA 3.0, a graphics-first architecture. These are not iterative changes; they are entirely different design philosophies from AMD.

Process technology is a major differentiator. The MI100 is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the W7700 uses a 5 nm process. The transistor counts are similar, 25,600 million for the MI100 and 28,100 million for the W7700, but the die sizes are vastly different. The MI100 measures 750 mm², while the W7700 is a compact 346 mm². This results in a transistor density of 34.1M per mm² for the MI100 versus 81.2M per mm² for the W7700. The W7700 packs more than twice the transistors per square millimeter.

Core configurations tell a story of specialization. The MI100 has 7,680 shading units, 480 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The MI100 has 2.5 times the shading units and 2.5 times the TMUs, but the W7700 has 1.5 times the ROPs. The W7700 also includes 48 ray tracing cores, while the MI100 has none listed. Neither card has tensor cores.

Clock speeds are dramatically different. The MI100 runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1502 MHz boost. The W7700 runs at 1900 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost. The W7700's clocks are nearly 75% higher at base and 73% higher at boost. This explains how the W7700 achieves higher FP32 TFLOPS (31.95 vs 23.07) despite having fewer shading units.

Memory architecture is another clear split. The MI100 uses HBM2 with 32 GB capacity, a 4096-bit bus, and 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. The W7700 uses GDDR6 with 16 GB, a 256-bit bus, and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI100's memory bandwidth advantage is 2.13 times. The W7700 compensates with a higher effective memory clock of 18 Gbps versus the MI100's 2.4 Gbps, but the bus width difference is decisive.

The Verdict

The data points to two different tools for two different jobs. The AMD Instinct MI100 is a compute accelerator. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and a massive 32 GB HBM2 pool with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth. Its 28.4% OpenCL lead over the W7700 confirms that raw compute is its strength. The MI100 also sits in the 96th percentile of all GPUs, slightly ahead of the W7700's 95th percentile, but the gap in actual scores is what matters.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation graphics card. It has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, full DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and ray tracing cores. It consumes less power (190 W vs 300 W), requires a smaller power supply (450 W vs 700 W), and runs faster clocks (2600 MHz boost vs 1502 MHz boost). Its higher FP32 throughput of 31.95 TFLOPS suggests it can handle graphics-heavy tasks better than the MI100's 23.07 TFLOPS.

If your priority is compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, the MI100 wins outright. If your priority is a current, power-efficient card with display outputs and modern API support, the W7700 is the practical choice. The MI100 is end-of-life, while the W7700 is a recent release. Given the MI100's 28.4% benchmark advantage and the W7700's feature set, pick the MI100 for raw compute and the W7700 for everything else.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. Here is the breakdown:

• Process node: MI100 is 7 nm; W7700 is 5 nm.
• Die size: MI100 is 750 mm²; W7700 is 346 mm².
• Transistor density: MI100 is 34.1M / mm²; W7700 is 81.2M / mm².
• Base clock: MI100 is 1000 MHz; W7700 is 1900 MHz.
• Boost clock: MI100 is 1502 MHz; W7700 is 2600 MHz.
• Memory size: MI100 is 32 GB; W7700 is 16 GB.
• Memory type: MI100 is HBM2; W7700 is GDDR6.
• Memory bus width: MI100 is 4096 bit; W7700 is 256 bit.
• Memory bandwidth: MI100 is 1.23 TB/s; W7700 is 576.0 GB/s.
• Shading units: MI100 is 7680; W7700 is 3072.
• TMUs: MI100 is 480; W7700 is 192.
• ROPs: MI100 is 64; W7700 is 96.
• Ray tracing cores: MI100 has none; W7700 has 48.
• Pixel rate: MI100 is 96.13 GPixel/s; W7700 is 249.6 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: MI100 is 721.0 GTexel/s; W7700 is 499.2 GTexel/s.
• FP32: MI100 is 23.07 TFLOPS; W7700 is 31.95 TFLOPS.
• FP16: MI100 is 46.14 TFLOPS (2:1); W7700 is 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1).
• TDP: MI100 is 300 W; W7700 is 190 W.
• Power connectors: MI100 is 2x 8-pin; W7700 is 1x 8-pin.
• Suggested PSU: MI100 is 700 W; W7700 is 450 W.
• Display outputs: MI100 has none; W7700 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1.
• API support: MI100 has N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan; W7700 has DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4.
• Length: MI100 is 267 mm; W7700 is 241 mm.
• Release date: MI100 is 2020-11-15; W7700 is 2023-11-12.
• Production status: MI100 is end-of-life; W7700 is not listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI100 wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its OpenCL score of 139,035 is 28.4% higher than the W7700's 108,245. The 32 GB HBM2 memory with 1.23 TB/s bandwidth is a clear advantage for large datasets that exceed the W7700's 16 GB GDDR6 capacity. The MI100's 4096-bit bus is unmatched by the W7700's 256-bit bus. For scientific computing, data center acceleration, or any workload that relies on massive memory bandwidth, the MI100 is the obvious pick. Its 96th percentile standing among all GPUs, paired with a 0.7% lead over the Tesla V100 PCIe 16 GB, shows it remains competitive even after its end-of-life status.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 wins in graphics and power efficiency. It has display outputs (4x DisplayPort 2.1), which the MI100 completely lacks. It supports modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI100 supports none. The W7700's ray tracing cores (48) enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature absent on the MI100. Its higher pixel rate (249.6 GPixel/s vs 96.13 GPixel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (31.95 TFLOPS vs 23.07 TFLOPS) suggest better performance in rasterization and general graphics workloads. The W7700 also draws 110 W less power (190 W vs 300 W) and fits in a shorter chassis (241 mm vs 267 mm). Its Vulkan score of 129,706 is strong, though not directly comparable to the MI100's lack of Vulkan support.

The W7700's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, which it trails by 1.6%, and the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, which it beats by 4%. The MI100's nearest rivals are all Tesla V100 variants and Radeon Pro cards, all within 2.4% of its score. This shows the MI100 is clustered with high-end datacenter accelerators, while the W7700 sits among modern workstation GPUs. Choose the MI100 for raw compute and memory bandwidth; choose the W7700 for graphics, efficiency, and current feature support.