AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7900 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI325X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7900. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and neither product has a record of a shared test in the benchmark suite. This absence of direct comparison data means the analysis must rely on the individual specification records and the Radeon PRO W7900's existing benchmark scores.

The Radeon PRO W7900 holds two recorded benchmark entries in the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 84,379 points. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 137,070 points. Its average benchmark score across these tests is 110,725 points, placing it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Instinct MI325X, by contrast, has no benchmark entries, a zero average score, and sits at the 50th percentile, which reflects the absence of measured data rather than a performance assessment.

The nearest rivals for the Radeon PRO W7900 provide context for its benchmark standing. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II averages 109,617 points, a 1% delta relative to the W7900. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile averages 113,944 points, a 2.8% deficit for the W7900. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X averages 107,342 points, a 3.2% advantage for the W7900. The NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB averages 114,395 points, a 3.2% deficit for the W7900. These deltas indicate the W7900 clusters closely with its nearest competitors, with margins under 4% in all directions.

The Instinct MI325X has no nearest rivals listed, no benchmark scores, and no wins in any head-to-head comparison. The Radeon PRO W7900 likewise has zero recorded wins in head-to-head benchmarks, as the head-to-head array is empty for both products. The data does not support a quantitative performance ranking between the two accelerators.

The Verdict

The data shows two accelerators designed for fundamentally different workloads, and the recorded information does not permit a direct performance verdict. The Radeon PRO W7900 is a workstation card with measured benchmark scores, a 94th percentile standing, and a 110,725 average score. The Instinct MI325X is a compute accelerator with no benchmark records, so its percentile of 50 reflects missing data, not measured weakness.

From the specification records, the Instinct MI325X targets memory-bound compute tasks. It carries 256 GB of HBM3e memory with 6.14 TB/s bandwidth, figures that dwarf the W7900's 48 GB GDDR6 and 864.0 GB/s. The MI325X also has 19,456 shading units versus 6,144 for the W7900, and a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 958.1 GTexel/s. Its FP32 throughput is 81.72 TFLOPS, while the W7900 delivers 61.32 TFLOPS. These specifications suggest the MI325X is built for large-scale compute, not for rasterization or display output.

The Radeon PRO W7900, in contrast, is a graphics-capable workstation card. It has 192 ROPs, a pixel rate of 479.0 GPixel/s, and 96 ray tracing cores. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI325X has zero ROPs, a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, and no supported graphics APIs. The W7900 also has display outputs (3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1), while the MI325X has no outputs at all.

The verdict from the data is clear: the Radeon PRO W7900 is the only one of the two that can produce graphics output, run graphics API workloads, or fit into a traditional workstation slot. The Instinct MI325X is a compute-only module with no display capability, no graphics API support, and a 1000 W power draw. Users whose work involves rendering, ray tracing, or graphics acceleration would choose the W7900 based on its feature set alone. Users whose work involves massive memory-resident datasets or high-throughput compute would look to the MI325X, though the lack of benchmark data means its real-world performance is unverified in this database.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators use different architectures from AMD. The Instinct MI325X is built on CDNA 3.0, while the Radeon PRO W7900 uses RDNA 3.0. These are distinct design families: CDNA targets compute acceleration, while RDNA targets graphics and general-purpose rendering. The chip names reflect this split. The MI325X uses a chip called Aqua Vanjaram, while the W7900 uses Navi 31 with the codename Plum Bonito.

The process nodes are identical: both are manufactured on 5 nm at TSMC. The transistor counts, however, differ substantially. The MI325X has 153,000 million transistors on a die of 1017 mm², yielding a transistor density of 150.4M per mm². The W7900 has 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, with a density of 109.1M per mm². The MI325X is a physically larger and denser chip, reflecting its compute-oriented design with a massive memory interface.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The MI325X uses HBM3e with a 8192-bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The W7900 uses GDDR6 with a 384-bit bus and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The memory bus width difference is enormous, 8192 bits versus 384 bits, which explains the bandwidth gap. The MI325X's memory controller is built for sustained streaming of large datasets, while the W7900's memory system serves a more conventional graphics workload.

The compute resources also differ in organization. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 texture mapping units, with no ROPs. The W7900 has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The MI325X lacks the rasterization pipeline entirely, which is consistent with its compute-only role. The W7900 includes 96 ray tracing cores, a feature the MI325X does not list. The MI325X also has no tensor core count listed, and neither product has a listed tensor core figure.

Clock behavior differs as well. The MI325X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2100 MHz. The W7900 has a base clock of 1760 MHz and a boost clock of 2495 MHz. The W7900 runs at higher clocks, which is typical for a graphics-focused part, while the MI325X relies on massive parallelism and memory bandwidth rather than raw clock speed.

Specification Differences

The specification records show several clear differences between the two products.

Memory: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth. The W7900 has 48 GB of GDDR6 with a 384-bit bus and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: The MI325X has 19,456 shading units, 1,216 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The W7900 has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 192 ROPs.

Texture and pixel rates: The MI325X delivers 2,553.6 GTexel/s texture rate and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate. The W7900 delivers 958.1 GTexel/s and 479.0 GPixel/s.

FP32 and FP16: The MI325X offers 81.72 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio). The W7900 offers 61.32 TFLOPS for both (1:1 ratio).

Clocks: The MI325X has a 1000 MHz base and 2100 MHz boost. The W7900 has a 1760 MHz base and 2495 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the MI325X runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), the W7900 at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Power: The MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The W7900 has a TDP of 295 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Form factor: The MI325X is an OAM Module with no power connectors listed and no display outputs. The W7900 is a Triple-slot card with 2x 8-pin power connectors and 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. Its dimensions are 280 mm length, 110 mm height, 51 mm width.

Bus interface: The MI325X uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The W7900 uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Graphics APIs: The MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The W7900 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Release dates: The MI325X was released on 2024-10-09. The W7900 was released on 2023-05-25. The W7900 has a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD; the MI325X has no listed launch MSRP.

Production status: The W7900 is listed as Active. The MI325X has no production status listed.

Predecessors: The MI325X lists Radeon Instinct as its predecessor. The W7900 lists Radeon Pro Vega.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e memory, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: Which GPU supports graphics APIs?

A: The Radeon PRO W7900 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Instinct MI325X lists no graphics API support, with N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Instinct MI325X has 6.14 TB/s bandwidth over an 8192-bit bus. The Radeon PRO W7900 has 864.0 GB/s over a 384-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has display outputs?

A: The Radeon PRO W7900 has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The Instinct MI325X has no display outputs.

Q: What is the power draw comparison?

A: The Instinct MI325X has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Radeon PRO W7900 has a TDP of 295 W with a suggested PSU of 600 W.

Q: Which GPU was released more recently?

A: The Instinct MI325X was released on 2024-10-09. The Radeon PRO W7900 was released on 2023-05-25.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 throughput?

A: The Instinct MI325X delivers 81.72 TFLOPS in FP32. The Radeon PRO W7900 delivers 61.32 TFLOPS in FP32.

Where Each One Wins

The Instinct MI325X wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 figure of 81.72 TFLOPS exceeds the W7900's 61.32 TFLOPS by a margin of roughly one-third. Its texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s is more than double the W7900's 958.1 GTexel/s. Its memory capacity of 256 GB and bandwidth of 6.14 TB/s are unmatched by the W7900's 48 GB and 864.0 GB/s. For workloads that require loading very large models or datasets into memory, or that saturate memory bandwidth, the MI325X is the clear choice from the specification data.

The Radeon PRO W7900 wins in graphics-specific capabilities. It has 192 ROPs and a pixel rate of 479.0 GPixel/s, while the MI325X has zero ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s. The W7900 includes 96 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the MI325X's record. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI325X supports none of these. The W7900 provides display outputs, making it usable in a workstation with monitors attached. The MI325X has no outputs, so it cannot drive a display.

The power profile also favors the W7900 for practical deployment. Its TDP of 295 W and suggested PSU of 600 W are far lower than the MI325X's 1000 W TDP and 1400 W suggested PSU. The W7900 fits in a Triple-slot PCIe card with a 280 mm length, while the MI325X is an OAM Module with no listed dimensions. The W7900 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the MI325X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, giving the latter a newer bus interface.

Benchmark data exists only for the W7900. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 84,379 and Vulkan score of 137,070, with an average of 110,725, place it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs. The MI325X has no benchmark scores in the database, so its performance in real workloads cannot be assessed from this data. The W7900's nearest rivals show it sits within a few percentage points of similar workstation accelerators, with deltas ranging from 1% above the Radeon Pro Vega II to 3.2% below the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB.

In summary, the MI325X wins for compute-heavy, memory-bound, display-less acceleration tasks. The W7900 wins for graphics rendering, ray tracing, API support, and any workload requiring a display output. The absence of head-to-head benchmarks means these conclusions rest entirely on the specification records and the single product's benchmark data.