AMD Instinct MI350P vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the memory configuration of the AMD Instinct MI350P?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350P uses 144 GB of HBM3e memory on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the memory configuration of the AMD Radeon PRO W7400?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Instinct MI350P has a 600 W TDP and requires a 1000 W suggested PSU with a 1x 16-pin power connector. The Radeon PRO W7400 has a 55 W TDP, requires a 250 W suggested PSU, and needs no power connectors.

Q: Do both cards support the same API feature set?

A: No. The Radeon PRO W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Instinct MI350P reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for conventional graphics API workloads.

Q: What display outputs does each card offer?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The Instinct MI350P has no display outputs at all.

Q: What are the physical dimensions and slot requirements?

A: The Instinct MI350P is 267 mm long, 111 mm high, and 40 mm wide, occupying a dual-slot form factor. The Radeon PRO W7400 is 168 mm long, 69 mm high, and 20 mm wide, occupying a single-slot form factor.

The Verdict

The data indicates two fundamentally different products with almost no overlap in intended use. The AMD Instinct MI350P is a compute-oriented accelerator built on CDNA 4.0 architecture with a 3 nm process node. It carries 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die, uses 144 GB of HBM3e memory, and delivers 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 compute. Its 600 W TDP, dual-slot design, and absence of display outputs position it squarely as a server or datacenter compute device.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a workstation graphics card built on RDNA 3.0 architecture with a 6 nm process node. It has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, and 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 compute. Its 55 W TDP, single-slot design, and 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs make it a low-power option for professional visualization and graphics workloads.

The recorded data shows the MI350P wins decisively in raw compute throughput, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. The W7400 wins in power efficiency, physical footprint, and graphics output capability. Neither card is a substitute for the other. The MI350P is for compute-heavy environments where display output is irrelevant. The W7400 is for graphics workstations where power draw and size matter.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, so direct measured comparisons are not available. However, the specification data in the database allows for direct numerical comparison of key performance indicators.

FP32 compute favors the Instinct MI350P by a wide margin. The MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS versus the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. That is roughly 4.6 times the FP32 throughput. FP16 compute shows the same ratio: 36.04 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS, both at 1:1 ratio.

Texture rate follows the same pattern. The MI350P reaches 1,126.4 GTexel/s while the W7400 reaches 123.2 GTexel/s. The MI350P's 512 TMUs against the W7400's 112 TMUs explains this gap.

Pixel rate reverses the trend. The W7400 achieves 70.40 GPixel/s with 64 ROPs, while the MI350P reports 0 MPixel/s with 0 ROPs. The MI350P has no raster output stage, meaning it cannot perform conventional pixel rendering.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive MI350P win. The MI350P's 8.19 TB/s dwarfs the W7400's 172.8 GB/s. The MI350P also has a far wider memory bus at 8192 bits versus 128 bits.

Clock behavior differs significantly. The MI350P has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The MI350P's higher clocks contribute to its compute advantage, though the W7400's lower clocks align with its 55 W TDP.

The MI350P has 8192 shading units versus the W7400's 1792. The MI350P also has 512 TMUs versus 112. The W7400 has 28 ray tracing cores, while the MI350P reports no ray tracing core count.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measured field.

Process node: The MI350P uses a 3 nm process from TSMC. The W7400 uses a 6 nm process from TSMC.

Transistor count: The MI350P has 73,000 million transistors. The W7400 has 13,300 million.

Die size: The MI350P measures 1190 mm². The W7400 measures 204 mm².

Transistor density: The MI350P has 61.3M transistors per mm². The W7400 has 65.2M per mm².

Memory size: 144 GB on the MI350P versus 8 GB on the W7400.

Memory type: HBM3e on the MI350P versus GDDR6 on the W7400.

Memory bus width: 8192 bits versus 128 bits.

Memory clock: The MI350P runs at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective. The W7400 runs at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective.

Shading units: 8192 versus 1792.

TMUs: 512 versus 112.

ROPs: 0 versus 64.

Ray tracing cores: The W7400 has 28. The MI350P reports none.

Pixel rate: 0 MPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s.

Texture rate: 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s.

FP32: 36.04 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS.

FP16: 36.04 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS, both 1:1.

TDP: 600 W versus 55 W.

Slot width: Dual-slot versus single-slot.

Power connectors: 1x 16-pin on the MI350P, none on the W7400.

Suggested PSU: 1000 W versus 250 W.

Bus interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8.

Display outputs: None versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1.

APIs: The MI350P reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. The W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Dimensions: The MI350P is 267 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm. The W7400 is 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm.

Release dates: The MI350P released on 2026-05-06. The W7400 released on 2025-08-02.

Production status: The W7400 is listed as Active. The MI350P has no production status recorded.

Chip names: The MI350P uses the MI350 128CU chip. The W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip.

Codename: The W7400 has the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The MI350P has no codename recorded.

Predecessors: The MI350P's predecessor is Radeon Instinct. The W7400's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega.

Architecture Differences

The MI350P uses CDNA 4.0 architecture, designed specifically for compute acceleration. The W7400 uses RDNA 3.0 architecture, designed for graphics rendering and workstation visualization.

The MI350P is built on a 3 nm TSMC process with 73,000 million transistors across a 1190 mm² die. That large die accommodates 8192 shading units and 512 TMUs but no ROPs, reflecting a design that omits the rasterization pipeline entirely. The absence of ROPs and display outputs confirms this is not a graphics card.

The W7400 uses a 6 nm TSMC process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. It includes 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 indicates a full graphics feature set.

Memory architecture also diverges. The MI350P uses HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus, achieving 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The W7400 uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus, achieving 172.8 GB/s. The MI350P's memory subsystem is built for large data movement in compute workloads. The W7400's smaller memory pool suits frame buffers and graphics data.

The MI350P's 1x 16-pin power connector and 1000 W suggested PSU reflect a high-power compute accelerator. The W7400 draws power from the PCIe slot alone, needing no auxiliary connectors and only a 250 W suggested PSU.

The bus interfaces differ as well: PCIe 5.0 x16 on the MI350P versus PCIe 4.0 x8 on the W7400. The newer, wider interface on the MI350P supports higher host transfer rates for compute workloads.

The MI350P reports no ray tracing cores, while the W7400 includes 28. The MI350P also reports no graphics API support. These differences reinforce that the MI350P targets compute, not rendering.

Where Each One Wins

The Instinct MI350P wins in any scenario that relies on raw compute throughput. Its 36.04 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 performance, 8192 shading units, and 512 TMUs deliver roughly 4.6 times the compute of the W7400. The 144 GB HBM3e pool with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth gives it a massive advantage for large datasets, model training, or simulation workloads that exceed the W7400's 8 GB GDDR6 capacity.

The MI350P also wins in memory-heavy tasks. Its 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth are orders of magnitude above the W7400's 172.8 GB/s. The 144 GB capacity allows the MI350P to hold far larger working sets entirely on-card, avoiding host transfers.

The MI350P wins in power budget terms only in the sense that it is built for a 600 W envelope. With a 1000 W suggested PSU and dual-slot form factor, it is meant for server racks or workstations where power and space are available.

The Radeon PRO W7400 wins in graphics output. With 4x DisplayPort 2.1, it can drive multiple displays. The MI350P has no display outputs at all.

The W7400 wins in pixel processing. Its 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 64 ROPs enable rasterization, while the MI350P reports 0 MPixel/s. The W7400 also has 28 ray tracing cores for ray-traced workloads, which the MI350P lacks.

The W7400 wins in power efficiency. Its 55 W TDP is a fraction of the MI350P's 600 W TDP. It needs no auxiliary power connectors and only a 250 W suggested PSU. This makes it suitable for compact workstations or systems with limited power delivery.

The W7400 wins in physical footprint. At 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm and single-slot, it fits where the MI350P's 267 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm dual-slot design cannot.

The W7400 wins in API compatibility. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, enabling standard graphics applications. The MI350P reports N/A for all three APIs.

The W7400 wins for users who need a workstation card with graphics drivers, display outputs, and low power draw. The MI350P wins for users who need maximum compute throughput and memory capacity without any graphics functionality. The recorded data shows no benchmark overlap, so the choice depends entirely on workload type.