AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7800 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI325X and AMD Radeon PRO W7800 occupy completely different performance domains, and the recorded data makes that split unambiguous. The MI325X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, no rasterization pipeline (0 ROPs, 0 MPixel/s pixel rate), and no graphics API support (DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all marked N/A). Its entire design targets massive parallel throughput for data-center workloads. The W7800 is a workstation GPU with full graphics and compute capability, carrying 70 ray tracing cores, 128 ROPs, 323.2 GPixel/s pixel rate, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The database shows zero head-to-head benchmark entries between these two cards, so direct score comparison is not possible. Instead, the wins are defined by architectural capability. The MI325X wins in raw FP32 throughput: 81.72 TFLOPS versus 45.25 TFLOPS on the W7800, an 80.6% advantage. It also wins decisively in memory capacity and bandwidth: 256 GB of HBM3e with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth versus 32 GB of GDDR6 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7800 wins in FP16 throughput where its 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) exceeds the MI325X’s 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), and it wins in every graphics-specific metric: pixel rate, texture operations per second (707.0 GTexel/s versus 2,553.6 GTexel/s goes to the MI325X, but the W7800 has actual raster output), display connectivity, and API compatibility. The W7800 also holds a 97th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database, while the MI325X sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

The two cards share a 5 nm TSMC process node and AMD as the manufacturer, but nearly everything else diverges. The MI325X uses the Aqua Vanjaram chip with CDNA 3.0 architecture, a data-center compute design. It packs 153,000 million transistors across a 1017 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, a workstation graphics design, with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, giving 109.1M per mm². The MI325X’s die is nearly twice the physical size and holds over 2.6 times the transistor count.

Core configuration differs sharply. The MI325X carries 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, but zero ROPs. The W7800 has 4,480 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. The MI325X has no ray tracing cores; the W7800 has 70. Neither card lists tensor cores in the database. Clock behavior also differs: the MI325X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost, while the W7800 boosts higher at 1895 MHz base and 2525 MHz boost. Memory architecture is fundamentally different: the MI325X uses 256 GB of HBM3e across an 8192-bit bus, while the W7800 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 across a 256-bit bus.

Physical and power characteristics separate them further. The MI325X is an OAM module with no power connectors, no display outputs, and a 1000 W TDP requiring a 1400 W suggested PSU. The W7800 is a dual-slot card measuring 280 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, uses two 8-pin power connectors, has a 260 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU, and outputs via 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The MI325X uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the W7800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Release timing shows the MI325X launched 2024-10-09 while the W7800 launched 2023-04-12. The W7800 remains in active production; the MI325X’s production status is not recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

No direct head-to-head benchmark entries exist in the database for these two GPUs. The MI325X has an empty benchmark list, an average benchmark score of zero, and no nearest rivals. The W7800 has two recorded benchmark results: 154,366 in Geekbench OpenCL and 175,422 in Geekbench Vulkan, producing an average score of 164,894 and a 97th percentile ranking. Since the MI325X cannot run Vulkan or OpenCL workloads (API support marked N/A), a direct comparison on those tests is impossible by design.

What the data does allow is a comparison of theoretical compute ceilings. In FP32, the MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS versus 45.25 TFLOPS for the W7800, a 36.47 TFLOPS gap. In FP16, the W7800’s 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) edges past the MI325X’s 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) by 8.78 TFLOPS. Texture rate favors the MI325X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 707.0 GTexel/s, a 3.6 times advantage. Pixel rate is the W7800’s exclusive domain at 323.2 GPixel/s, since the MI325X has no ROPs and records 0 MPixel/s.

The W7800’s nearest rivals provide context for its benchmark standing. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 scores 165,217, which is 0.2% above the W7800’s average. The NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation scores 166,094, 0.7% above. The AMD Radeon Pro W6900X scores 168,574, 2.2% above. The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB scores 162,504, which is 1.5% below the W7800. These margins are tight, placing the W7800 in a competitive mid-range workstation tier. The MI325X has no such comparative data, so its standing cannot be benchmarked against any specific rival.

The Verdict

The data directs each card to a distinct buyer. The AMD Instinct MI325X is built exclusively for compute-heavy environments where massive memory capacity and bandwidth matter more than graphics output. Its 256 GB HBM3e pool with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth, 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, and 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate make it suitable for large-scale data processing, AI training, and scientific simulation workloads that can utilize a 1000 W OAM module with no display outputs. The absence of any graphics API support and zero ROPs means it cannot function as a display adapter. The 50th percentile ranking with no benchmarks reflects that the database has no measured performance data for this accelerator, not a statement about its capability.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 serves workstation users who need both graphics and compute. Its 32 GB GDDR6 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, 70 ray tracing cores, 323.2 GPixel/s pixel rate, and full API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4) make it a complete workstation GPU. The 97th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 164,894 place it competitively against the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (0.2% above), RTX 4500 Ada Generation (0.7% above), and Radeon Pro W6900X (2.2% above), while leading the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB by 1.5%. Its 260 W TDP and dual-slot form factor fit standard workstation chassis, and the launch MSRP is 2,499 USD.

Users who require display output, ray tracing, or graphics API compatibility must choose the W7800, as the MI325X provides none of those. Users who require the largest possible memory footprint and memory bandwidth for non-graphics compute must choose the MI325X, as the W7800’s 32 GB and 576.0 GB/s fall far short of 256 GB and 6.14 TB/s. The FP32 advantage of the MI325X supports compute-heavy floating-point workloads, while the W7800’s FP16 advantage (90.50 versus 81.72 TFLOPS) favors mixed-precision graphics and compute tasks that use 2:1 FP16.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 45.25 TFLOPS for the Radeon PRO W7800.

Q: Can the MI325X output video to displays?

A: No. The MI325X has no display outputs and lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as N/A. The W7800 has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth on an 8192-bit bus. The W7800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 256-bit bus.

Q: How does the W7800 compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The W7800’s average score is 164,894. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 scores 165,217 (0.2% higher), the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation scores 166,094 (0.7% higher), the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X scores 168,574 (2.2% higher), and the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB scores 162,504 (1.5% lower).

Q: Which card has ray tracing support?

A: The W7800 has 70 ray tracing cores. The MI325X has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP with a 1400 W suggested PSU and no power connectors (OAM module). The W7800 has a 260 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU and uses two 8-pin power connectors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI325X | AMD Radeon PRO W7800 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 3.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Chip | Aqua Vanjaram | Navi 31 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 153,000 million | 57,700 million |

| Die Size | 1017 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 150.4M / mm² | 109.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1895 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2100 MHz | 2525 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 256 GB | 32 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 | 4480 |

| TMUs | 1216 | 280 |

| ROPs | 0 | 128 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | N/A | 70 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 323.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,553.6 GTexel/s | 707.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 81.72 TFLOPS | 45.25 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1) | 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 1000 W | 260 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1400 W | 600 W |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |

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

| OpenGL Support | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | N/A | 280 mm (11 inches) length, 110 mm (4.3 inches) height, 40 mm (1.6 inches) width |

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2023-04-12 |

| Production Status | N/A | Active |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 2,499 USD |