AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI325X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. Both cards hold identical percentile rankings against all GPUs in the database, with each sitting at the 50th percentile. Neither card has any recorded average benchmark score, and the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. This means no direct performance deltas can be calculated from the recorded data.

However, the raw compute specifications indicate the MI325X delivers dramatically higher throughput. The MI325X outputs 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 7.885 TFLOPS for the W7400, a difference of roughly 10.4 times in raw floating-point capability. Texture rate follows the same pattern: the MI325X reaches 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the W7400 produces 123.2 GTexel/s, approximately 20.7 times lower. Pixel rate tells a different story, as the MI325X records 0 MPixel/s while the W7400 achieves 70.40 GPixel/s.

The MI325X also dominates in memory throughput. Its 6.14 TB/s of memory bandwidth is roughly 35.5 times the W7400's 172.8 GB/s. Memory capacity differs even more sharply, with the MI325X carrying 256 GB of HBM3e versus 8 GB of GDDR6 on the W7400, a 32-fold capacity advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X wins in every compute-oriented category recorded in the database. Its FP32 and FP16 performance both sit at 81.72 TFLOPS, with the FP16 figure listed as a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning no rate advantage for reduced precision. The MI325X uses a 5 nm process, carries 153,000 million transistors, and integrates 19,456 shading units, 1,216 texture mapping units, and a memory bus width of 8,192 bit. All of these metrics point toward a card designed for heavy parallel computation, particularly large-scale matrix operations and data-center workloads.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in areas tied to graphics output and workstation display functionality. It provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the MI325X has no display outputs at all. The W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores, whereas the MI325X lists no ray tracing core count. The W7400 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI325X records N/A for all three APIs. The W7400 has a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s, confirming its rasterization capability, while the MI325X produces 0 MPixel/s.

The W7400 also wins on operational flexibility in physical terms. It is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The MI325X is an OAM module, a form factor intended for server mounting rather than conventional expansion slots.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural families within AMD's lineup. The MI325X uses CDNA 3.0 architecture on the Aqua Vanjaram chip, while the W7400 uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. CDNA targets compute and data-center workloads, while RDNA targets graphics rendering and workstation use.

Process technology differs as well. The MI325X is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the W7400 uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. Transistor counts diverge substantially: the MI325X holds 153,000 million transistors, the W7400 holds 13,300 million. Die size scales accordingly, with the MI325X measuring 1017 mm² versus 204 mm² for the W7400. Transistor density per square millimeter also differs, with the MI325X at 150.4M / mm² and the W7400 at 65.2M / mm².

Memory architecture separates the two further. The MI325X uses HBM3e memory with a 8,192 bit bus and a memory clock of 1500 MHz, listed as 6 Gbps effective. The W7400 uses GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus with a 1350 MHz memory clock, listed as 10.8 Gbps effective. The MI325X has no power connectors because it is an OAM module, while the W7400 also lists no power connectors, drawing power through its slot.

Clock behavior also reflects their different design goals. The MI325X runs at a 1000 MHz base clock and 2100 MHz boost clock. The W7400 runs at a 330 MHz base clock and 1100 MHz boost clock. The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and suggests a 1400 W power supply. The W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and suggests a 250 W power supply.

The MI325X supports PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI325X lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support, while the W7400 lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X has no pixel rate, no ROPs, and no ray tracing cores. The W7400 has 64 ROPs and 28 ray tracing cores.

Release timing differs as well. The MI325X launched on 2024-10-09, while the W7400 launched on 2025-08-02. Both cards list a predecessor: the MI325X follows the Radeon Instinct line, and the W7400 follows the Radeon Pro Vega line. Neither card has a recorded successor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS. The MI325X offers approximately 10.4 times the FP32 throughput.

Q: Can either card output video to displays?

A: Only the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 supports display output, offering 4x DisplayPort 2.1 connections. The AMD Instinct MI325X has no display outputs.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8,192 bit bus with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores. The AMD Instinct MI325X lists no ray tracing core count.

Q: What are the physical form factors of each card?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X is an OAM Module, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width.

Q: Which card has higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has a transistor density of 150.4M / mm² on a 5 nm process. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a transistor density of 65.2M / mm² on a 6 nm process.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI325X | AMD Radeon PRO W7400 |

|---|---|---|

| Process node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 13,300 million |

| Die size | 1017 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor density | 150.4M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 330 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2100 MHz | 1100 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 1350 MHz, 10.8 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | 256 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | 8192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 6.14 TB/s | 172.8 GB/s |

| Shading units | 19,456 | 1,792 |

| TMUs | 1,216 | 112 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| Ray tracing cores | Not listed | 28 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 70.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 123.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 7.885 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 55 W |

| Slot width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | 250 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Navi 33 |

| Codename | Not listed | Hotpink Bonefish |

| Generation | Instinct (MIx) | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) |

| Release date | 2024-10-09 | 2025-08-02 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Production status | Not listed | Active |

The Verdict

The AMD Instinct MI325X is the clear choice for compute-heavy, data-center-oriented workloads based on the recorded specifications. Its FP32 and FP16 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS, memory bandwidth of 6.14 TB/s, and 256 GB of HBM3e memory position it for large-scale parallel processing. The absence of display outputs, ray tracing cores, and graphics API support confirms its role as an accelerator rather than a workstation graphics card.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the appropriate pick for workstation graphics and display-driven tasks. It provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and includes 28 ray tracing cores. Its 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 64 ROPs enable rasterization work, while its 55 W TDP and single-slot form factor allow for flexible deployment in conventional systems.

The data does not support a direct performance comparison, as no benchmark scores exist for either card. The percentile rankings are identical at 50. The specification table, however, shows two products built for different purposes. The MI325X concentrates resources into memory capacity, compute throughput, and interconnect bandwidth. The W7400 concentrates resources into graphics output, API compatibility, and physical adaptability. Users requiring compute acceleration should select the MI325X. Users requiring graphics rendering with display connectivity should select the W7400.