AMD Instinct MI325X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7900D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either the AMD Instinct MI325X or the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D. Both cards hold a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 0. The head-to-head comparison table is empty, and neither card records any wins. This absence of measured performance data means direct numerical performance comparisons cannot be established from the available records.

The lack of benchmark entries does not reflect on the theoretical capabilities of either card. For the MI325X, the raw computational specifications indicate a device built for massive parallel workloads. Its FP32 throughput is listed at 81.72 TFLOPS, while FP16 performance matches at 81.72 TFLOPS (1:1). The Radeon PRO W7900D, by contrast, delivers FP32 at 52.99 TFLOPS and FP16 at 52.99 TFLOPS (1:1). These figures represent a 54% advantage for the MI325X in both precision formats, a substantial margin on paper.

Texture and pixel processing show a different relationship. The MI325X posts a texture rate of 2,553.6 GTexel/s, while the W7900D reaches 827.9 GTexel/s. The W7900D, however, has a pixel rate of 414.0 GPixel/s, whereas the MI325X lists 0 MPixel/s. This difference stems from the MI325X having no ROPs (0), while the W7900D contains 192 ROPs. The MI325X is not designed for rasterized graphics output, and the data confirms this: it has no display outputs at all.

Memory bandwidth heavily favors the MI325X. Its HBM3e memory delivers 6.14 TB/s across a 8192-bit bus, while the W7900D's GDDR6 memory provides 864.0 GB/s over a 384-bit interface. The MI325X offers roughly 7.1 times the bandwidth, a decisive difference for memory-bound operations. Capacity also differs dramatically: 256 GB versus 48 GB.

Clock speeds reveal distinct operating profiles. The MI325X runs a base clock of 1000 MHz with a boost of 2100 MHz. The W7900D starts higher at 1327 MHz base and boosts to 2156 MHz. The W7900D's smaller chip with fewer shading units can sustain higher clocks, but the MI325X compensates through sheer scale.

Architecture Differences

The two cards use fundamentally different architectures from AMD. The MI325X is built on CDNA 3.0, a compute-focused design, while the W7900D uses RDNA 3.0, a graphics-oriented architecture. The MI325X's chip is codenamed Aqua Vanjaram; the W7900D uses Navi 31 with the codename Plum Bonito.

Both are fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but the physical implementations diverge sharply. The MI325X contains 153,000 million transistors on a die size of 1017 mm², giving a transistor density of 150.4M / mm². The W7900D packs 57,700 million transistors into 529 mm², for a density of 109.1M / mm². The MI325X die is nearly twice the area and holds almost three times the transistors.

The compute resources differ by design. The MI325X has 19,456 shading units and 1,216 TMUs, but zero ROPs. The W7900D has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. Additionally, the W7900D includes 96 ray tracing cores; the MI325X lists no ray tracing cores. The MI325X does not report tensor cores in the data, despite its compute orientation.

Memory architecture represents the most significant divergence. The MI325X uses HBM3e with 256 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus, and 1500 MHz memory clock (6 Gbps effective). The W7900D uses GDDR6 with 48 GB capacity, a 384-bit bus, and 2250 MHz memory clock (18 Gbps effective). The MI325X's bandwidth advantage is enormous, as noted previously.

API support separates the cards completely. The MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, confirming it is not a graphics card. The W7900D supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W7900D also provides display outputs: 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The MI325X has no outputs.

Physical specifications reinforce the different purposes. The MI325X is an OAM Module with no power connectors and a 1000 W TDP, requiring a 1400 W suggested PSU. The W7900D is a triple-slot card measuring 280 mm by 110 mm by 51 mm, with 2x 8-pin power connectors, a 295 W TDP, and a 600 W suggested PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Instinct MI325X, with 81.72 TFLOPS, compared to the Radeon PRO W7900D's 52.99 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the MI325X support graphics APIs like DirectX or Vulkan?

A: No. The MI325X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and has no display outputs. The W7900D supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The MI325X has 256 GB of HBM3e, while the W7900D has 48 GB of GDDR6.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The MI325X delivers 6.14 TB/s, while the W7900D provides 864.0 GB/s. The MI325X has roughly 7.1 times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has ray tracing cores?

A: Only the W7900D, with 96 ray tracing cores. The MI325X lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI325X has a 1000 W TDP and suggests a 1400 W PSU. The W7900D has a 295 W TDP and suggests a 600 W PSU.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Architecture: CDNA 3.0 (MI325X) versus RDNA 3.0 (W7900D)
• Chip: Aqua Vanjaram (MI325X) versus Navi 31 (W7900D)
• Codename: None listed (MI325X) versus Plum Bonito (W7900D)
• Transistors: 153,000 million (MI325X) versus 57,700 million (W7900D)
• Die Size: 1017 mm² (MI325X) versus 529 mm² (W7900D)
• Transistor Density: 150.4M / mm² (MI325X) versus 109.1M / mm² (W7900D)
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz (MI325X) versus 1327 MHz (W7900D)
• Boost Clock: 2100 MHz (MI325X) versus 2156 MHz (W7900D)
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective (MI325X) versus 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective (W7900D)
• Memory Size: 256 GB (MI325X) versus 48 GB (W7900D)
• Memory Type: HBM3e (MI325X) versus GDDR6 (W7900D)
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit (MI325X) versus 384 bit (W7900D)
• Memory Bandwidth: 6.14 TB/s (MI325X) versus 864.0 GB/s (W7900D)
• Shading Units: 19,456 (MI325X) versus 6,144 (W7900D)
• TMUs: 1,216 (MI325X) versus 384 (W7900D)
• ROPs: 0 (MI325X) versus 192 (W7900D)
• RT Cores: None listed (MI325X) versus 96 (W7900D)
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s (MI325X) versus 414.0 GPixel/s (W7900D)
• Texture Rate: 2,553.6 GTexel/s (MI325X) versus 827.9 GTexel/s (W7900D)
• FP32: 81.72 TFLOPS (MI325X) versus 52.99 TFLOPS (W7900D)
• FP16: 81.72 TFLOPS (MI325X) versus 52.99 TFLOPS (W7900D)
• TDP: 1000 W (MI325X) versus 295 W (W7900D)
• Slot Width: OAM Module (MI325X) versus Triple-slot (W7900D)
• Power Connectors: None (MI325X) versus 2x 8-pin (W7900D)
• Suggested PSU: 1400 W (MI325X) versus 600 W (W7900D)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 (MI325X) versus PCIe 4.0 x16 (W7900D)
• Display Outputs: No outputs (MI325X) versus 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 (W7900D)
• DirectX: N/A (MI325X) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2) (W7900D)
• OpenGL: N/A (MI325X) versus 4.6 (W7900D)
• Vulkan: N/A (MI325X) versus 1.4 (W7900D)
• Dimensions: None listed (MI325X) versus 280 mm length, 110 mm height, 51 mm width (W7900D)
• Release Date: 2024-10-09 (MI325X) versus 2025-09-24 (W7900D)
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct (MI325X) versus Radeon Pro Vega (W7900D)
• Production Status: None listed (MI325X) versus Active (W7900D)

Where Each One Wins

The MI325X wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 and FP16 figures of 81.72 TFLOPS exceed the W7900D's 52.99 TFLOPS by over 54%. Texture rate also favors the MI325X at 2,553.6 GTexel/s versus 827.9 GTexel/s. Memory capacity and bandwidth go to the MI325X without contest: 256 GB and 6.14 TB/s versus 48 GB and 864.0 GB/s. The MI325X also uses a newer PCIe 5.0 x16 interface compared to the W7900D's PCIe 4.0 x16.

The W7900D wins in every graphics-specific category. It has 192 ROPs and a pixel rate of 414.0 GPixel/s, while the MI325X has none. It includes 96 ray tracing cores, which the MI325X lacks entirely. The W7900D supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI325X has no graphics API support. Display connectivity exists only on the W7900D, with 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1.

Clock speeds favor the W7900D. Its base of 1327 MHz and boost of 2156 MHz both exceed the MI325X's 1000 MHz and 2100 MHz. Power efficiency also favors the W7900D, with a 295 W TDP versus 1000 W, and a 600 W suggested PSU versus 1400 W. The W7900D also has a smaller physical footprint with listed dimensions, while the MI325X is an OAM Module.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two entirely different products serving distinct purposes. The AMD Instinct MI325X is a compute accelerator with no graphics output, no ROPs, no ray tracing cores, and no graphics API support. Its 256 GB of HBM3e memory and 6.14 TB/s bandwidth position it for large-scale data processing, machine learning training, and scientific simulation workloads where memory capacity and bandwidth are the limiting factors. Its 81.72 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 provides massive parallel throughput, but the 1000 W TDP and OAM Module form factor restrict deployment to specialized server environments.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900D is a workstation graphics card. Its 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, 192 ROPs, 96 ray tracing cores, and full graphics API support make it suitable for content creation, 3D rendering, and GPU-accelerated design workflows. The 414.0 GPixel/s pixel rate and 827.9 GTexel/s texture rate indicate strong rasterization performance. Its 295 W TDP and triple-slot design with 2x 8-pin power connectors fit standard workstation chassis, and its DisplayPort 2.1 outputs connect directly to monitors.

The choice between these cards depends entirely on workload type. For compute-heavy tasks that require maximum memory bandwidth and capacity with no need for display output, the MI325X is the only option that matches the profile. For graphics rendering, ray tracing, and interactive workstation use, the W7900D covers all requirements. The data does not support using either card for the other's purpose: the MI325X cannot output video, and the W7900D lacks the memory capacity and bandwidth for large-scale compute tasks. The MI325X leads in compute, memory, and bandwidth; the W7900D leads in graphics features, display support, and power efficiency.