AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The comparison between the AMD Instinct MI325X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is not a conventional head-to-head matchup. The database contains no shared benchmark tests for these two accelerators. The Instinct MI325X has a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of zero, reflecting the absence of recorded workloads. The Radeon PRO W7700, in contrast, holds a 95th percentile ranking with an average benchmark score of 118,976, derived from two recorded tests: Geekbench OpenCL at 108,245 and Geekbench Vulkan at 129,706.

The absence of overlapping data points means a direct score comparison cannot be established. What the data does show is that the W7700 is a measured, functioning part in consumer-accessible workloads, while the MI325X exists in the database without any empirical performance records. The MI325X's theoretical FP32 output of 81.72 TFLOPS vastly exceeds the W7700's 31.95 TFLOPS, but this is a specification, not a measured benchmark result. The investigation must therefore rely on architectural and feature differences to infer where each part would dominate, rather than claiming verified performance deltas.

The nearest rivals for the W7700 provide useful context. The NVIDIA GB10 scores 117,393, a 1.3% delta from the W7700. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation sits 1.6% behind, and the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB trails by 4%. These are small margins, indicating the W7700 is tightly clustered with other workstation and professional cards in synthetic tests. No such rival data exists for the MI325X, leaving its competitive positioning entirely speculative.

Architecture Differences

The two AMD parts share a manufacturer and a 5 nm TSMC process node, but the similarities end there. The MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip built on CDNA 3.0 architecture, while the W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip on RDNA 3.0 with the codename Wheat Nas. These are fundamentally different design philosophies: CDNA targets compute acceleration, RDNA targets graphics and general-purpose rendering.

Transistor counts reveal the scale gap. The MI325X packs 153,000 million transistors on a 1017 mm² die, yielding a density of 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The W7700 contains 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, at a density of 81.2 million per square millimeter. The MI325X is more than five times larger in transistor count and nearly three times larger in die area, with a considerably higher packing density.

Memory architecture is another clear divide. The MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, delivering 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth. The W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 576.0 GB/s. The bandwidth ratio is approximately 10.7 to 1 in favor of the MI325X. Memory clock figures differ as well: the MI325X runs at 1500 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the W7700 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, though the vastly wider bus on the MI325X makes raw bandwidth comparisons lopsided.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, but zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, confirming it has no rasterization pipeline. The W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and a pixel rate of 249.6 GPixel/s. The W7700 also reports FP16 at 63.90 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, while the MI325X reports FP16 at 81.72 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

The MI325X has no display outputs and no support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The W7700 includes 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Clock speeds also differ: the MI325X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the W7700 runs at 1900 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost. The W7700 has higher raw clocks, but the MI325X compensates with massive parallel resources.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W7700 wins in every scenario that requires visual output, rasterization, or ray tracing. Its 96 ROPs, 48 ray tracing cores, and 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs make it suitable for graphics workloads, CAD visualization, and any application that relies on a standard graphics API. The DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support confirm its role in modern rendering pipelines. Its 190 W TDP and dual-slot form factor, powered by a single 8-pin connector with a suggested 450 W PSU, also make it far more practical for conventional workstation builds. Its 95th percentile rank and verified benchmark scores of 108,245 in OpenCL and 129,706 in Vulkan show it delivers real, measured performance in those environments.

The Instinct MI325X wins in raw compute density and memory capacity. Its 256 GB of HBM3e at 6.14 TB/s is a scale of memory bandwidth that dwarfs the W7700's 576.0 GB/s. The FP32 throughput of 81.72 TFLOPS, combined with a 1:1 FP16 ratio, indicates a device designed for high-throughput numerical workloads. The absence of display outputs and graphics APIs means it is not a card for rendering on screen; it is a compute accelerator meant for servers, with an OAM module form factor, no power connectors, and a suggested 1400 W PSU. Its 1000 W TDP reflects the energy appetite of such a part.

The transistor density difference is also telling. The MI325X achieves 150.4 million transistors per square millimeter versus 81.2 million for the W7700, indicating a more aggressive packing of compute units. The MI325X also uses PCIe 5.0 x16, double the bandwidth of the W7700's PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, which matters for data transfer in multi-GPU or high-throughput server environments.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD Instinct MI325X have no benchmark scores in the database?

A: The database lists no recorded benchmarks for the MI325X. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile rank against all GPUs is 50. The Radeon PRO W7700, by comparison, has two recorded scores and a 95th percentile rank.

Q: What benchmark scores does the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 have?

A: The W7700 scores 108,245 in Geekbench OpenCL and 129,706 in Geekbench Vulkan, for an average benchmark score of 118,976.

Q: How does the W7700 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W7700 is 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GB10, 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, 4% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, and 4.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Instinct MI325X has 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth from 256 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus. The W7700 has 576.0 GB/s from 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Can the Instinct MI325X output video to displays?

A: No. The MI325X has no display outputs and no support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The W7700 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and supports all three APIs.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP, uses an OAM module slot, has no power connectors, and requires a suggested 1400 W PSU. The W7700 has a 190 W TDP, uses a dual-slot form factor, has one 8-pin power connector, and requires a suggested 450 W PSU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI325X | AMD Radeon PRO W7700 |

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

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Navi 32 |

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Codename | None listed | Wheat Nas |

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

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 28,100 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 346 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 81.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2600 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 256 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 6.14 TB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 19456 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 192 |

| ROPs | 0 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None listed | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 249.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 499.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 81.72 TFLOPS | 31.95 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 190 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| 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 |

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2023-11-12 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 999 USD |

The Verdict

The data separates these two cards into distinct roles. The Radeon PRO W7700 is a verified, measured workstation GPU with a 95th percentile rank, real benchmark scores, display outputs, ray tracing cores, and a manageable 190 W TDP. It is the only one of the two with any empirical performance data in the database. Its 48 ray tracing cores, 96 ROPs, and full graphics API support make it the clear choice for any task that ends with pixels on a screen.

The Instinct MI325X is a compute accelerator with no measured benchmarks, no graphics outputs, no API support, and a 1000 W power draw. Its strengths are theoretical but substantial: 256 GB of HBM3e, 6.14 TB/s of bandwidth, 81.72 TFLOPS of FP32, and a 1:1 FP16 ratio. Any organization needing massive memory capacity and raw numerical throughput, and willing to accommodate an OAM module with a 1400 W suggested PSU, would look to this part. The W7700's 31.95 TFLOPS and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth cannot approach that scale.

The choice depends on the workload. The database shows the W7700 delivering verified results in OpenCL and Vulkan, placing it among a tight cluster of professional GPUs. The MI325X offers no such validation, only specifications. For graphics, rendering, and standard workstation use, the W7700 is the only option with recorded evidence. For high-density compute and memory-bound server workloads, the MI325X's architecture indicates its purpose, but the lack of benchmark data means its real-world standing remains unproven in this database.