AMD Instinct MI350P vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries comparing the AMD Instinct MI350P and the AMD Radeon PRO W7600. The MI350P has no benchmark scores listed, while the W7600 has two recorded results. This absence of overlapping measurements means a direct numerical comparison of their compute performance in identical tests is not possible from the data.

For the W7600, the available measurements show an average benchmark score of 87,108. This places it in the 93rd percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its individual scores are 81,528 in Geekbench OpenCL and 92,688 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Vulkan result is notably higher than the OpenCL result, a 13.7% gap within the same card. This suggests the W7600's architecture handles the Vulkan API more efficiently than OpenCL in the recorded test conditions.

The MI350P carries a zero average benchmark score and holds the 50th percentile position. The percentile figure is a placeholder value for unmeasured hardware, not an indication of real-world performance relative to other cards. With no benchmark entries, the database records no evidence of its compute throughput in standardized tests.

Comparing the two directly requires relying on architectural data rather than measured scores. The MI350P's FP32 throughput is listed at 36.04 TFLOPS, while the W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS. The MI350P is 80.3% higher in this metric. In FP16 compute, the MI350P also lists 36.04 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the W7600 reaches 39.98 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The W7600 leads in raw FP16 throughput by 10.9%, but the MI350P maintains its FP32 rate without the need for packed math.

Texture rate favors the MI350P at 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s for the W7600, a 260.7% advantage. Pixel rate tells the opposite story: the W7600 produces 156.2 GPixel/s, while the MI350P is recorded at 0 MPixel/s. This reflects a fundamental design difference, not a performance deficiency, as the MI350P lacks rasterization output units entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The MI350P uses 144 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s. The W7600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s. The MI350P has 28.4 times the bandwidth.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two cards?

A: The MI350P has a TDP of 600 W with a suggested PSU of 1000 W and a single 16-pin connector. The W7600 has a TDP of 130 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W and a single 6-pin connector. The MI350P consumes 4.6 times the power.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX?

A: No. The MI350P lists DirectX as N/A, along with OpenGL and Vulkan as N/A. The W7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: The W7600 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The MI350P has no display outputs at all, indicating it is designed for compute workloads rather than graphics output.

Q: What are the physical dimensions of each card?

A: The MI350P is 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, occupying a dual-slot form factor. The W7600 is 241 mm long and 115 mm tall, with no recorded width, and uses a single-slot form factor.

Q: How do the transistor counts compare?

A: The MI350P contains 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die, while the W7600 contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The MI350P has 5.5 times the transistor count and a 5.8 times larger die area.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent divergent architectural philosophies from AMD. The MI350P uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built for data center compute, while the W7600 uses RDNA 3.0, designed for workstation graphics and professional visualization. The MI350P belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, and the W7600 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation.

Manufacturing processes differ significantly. The MI350P is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the W7600 uses a 6 nm process at the same foundry. The MI350P's die is 1190 mm², making it substantially larger than the W7600's 204 mm² die. Transistor density is comparable: 61.3M per mm² for the MI350P versus 65.2M per mm² for the W7600. The MI350P's transistor count of 73,000 million is 5.5 times higher than the W7600's 13,300 million.

The MI350P uses the CDNA architecture's compute-oriented design. It has 8,192 shading units and 512 texture mapping units, but zero ROPs. The absence of ROPs means no pixel output capability, consistent with its lack of display outputs. The W7600 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, plus 32 ray tracing cores. This allows full graphics rasterization and ray tracing, features absent from the MI350P's specification sheet.

Memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The MI350P uses HBM3e stacked memory across an 8192-bit bus, achieving 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The W7600 uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 288.0 GB/s. The MI350P's memory capacity of 144 GB dwarfs the W7600's 8 GB. Clock speeds also differ: the MI350P has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2200 MHz, while the W7600 has a base of 1720 MHz and a boost of 2440 MHz. The W7600 runs at higher clock frequencies, but the MI350P's massive memory bus and wider internal execution resources compensate.

Interface and power delivery show the data center versus workstation split. The MI350P uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI350P requires a 600 W TDP with a 1000 W suggested PSU, while the W7600 operates at 130 W with a 300 W suggested PSU. The MI350P is dual-slot, the W7600 single-slot. The W7600's release date is recorded as 2023-08-02, while the MI350P's release date is 2026-05-06. The W7600 has an active production status; the MI350P's production status is not recorded.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split by workload type. The MI350P is a compute accelerator with no display capability, no graphics API support, and no rasterization hardware. It offers 144 GB of HBM3e memory, 36.04 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, and a 8192-bit memory bus delivering 8.19 TB/s. It targets workloads that demand massive memory capacity and bandwidth, such as large model inference or scientific computing. Its 600 W TDP and dual-slot cooler reflect a server-oriented design, with no need for video outputs or consumer graphics features.

The W7600 is a workstation graphics card with full display output, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and 32 ray tracing cores. It delivers 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 156.2 GPixel/s of pixel throughput. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest by comparison, but its 130 W TDP and single-slot form factor make it practical for professional desktops. Its benchmark results, averaging 87,108 and ranking in the 93rd percentile, place it in competition with cards like the NVIDIA RTX A4500, which scores 91,671 and shows a delta of -5%, and the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 at 87,445 with a delta of -0.4%.

A buyer selecting between these two is choosing between a compute server component and a workstation graphics card. The MI350P cannot drive a monitor, run DirectX applications, or perform traditional rendering workloads. The W7600 cannot approach the MI350P's memory capacity or bandwidth, and its FP32 throughput is 44.5% lower. The MI350P's FP16 performance of 36.04 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio is lower than the W7600's 39.98 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, but the MI350P's ratio indicates native FP16 throughput without packing overhead.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The MI350P uses a 3 nm process, the W7600 a 6 nm process. Transistor counts are 73,000 million versus 13,300 million. Die sizes are 1190 mm² versus 204 mm². Memory capacity is 144 GB versus 8 GB. Memory type is HBM3e versus GDDR6. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 288.0 GB/s.

Shading units are 8,192 versus 2,048. TMUs are 512 versus 128. ROPs are 0 versus 64. The W7600 has 32 ray tracing cores; the MI350P lists none. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 156.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 36.04 TFLOPS versus 19.99 TFLOPS. FP16 output is 36.04 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1).

Base clocks are 1000 MHz versus 1720 MHz. Boost clocks are 2200 MHz versus 2440 MHz. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). TDP is 600 W versus 130 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus single-slot. Power connectors are 1x 16-pin versus 1x 6-pin. Suggested PSU is 1000 W versus 300 W.

Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are none versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1. API support is N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan on the MI350P, while the W7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Dimensions are 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm versus 241 mm x 115 mm (width not recorded). Release dates are 2026-05-06 versus 2023-08-02. The W7600 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD; the MI350P has no recorded MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The MI350P wins decisively in compute throughput and memory capacity. Its FP32 output of 36.04 TFLOPS is 80.3% higher than the W7600's 19.99 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 1,126.4 GTexel/s is 260.7% higher. Its memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s is 28.4 times higher. Its 144 GB memory capacity is 18 times larger. Its 8192-bit bus width is 64 times wider. These advantages suit workloads where data sets exceed local memory and where bandwidth determines throughput, such as training large neural networks or processing massive scientific datasets.

The W7600 wins in graphics-oriented features and practical workstation use. It has 64 ROPs enabling pixel output, 32 ray tracing cores for hardware-accelerated ray tracing, and four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs for multi-monitor setups. Its API support covers DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with standard graphics software stacks. The MI350P's API listing is entirely N/A. The W7600 also holds an advantage in FP16 throughput at 39.98 TFLOPS versus 36.04 TFLOPS, though the MI350P achieves this at a 1:1 ratio versus the W7600's 2:1 packed ratio.

The W7600's power efficiency is clear from the data. It delivers 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32 at 130 W, while the MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS at 600 W. The W7600 produces 153.8 GFLOPS per watt, while the MI350P produces 60.1 GFLOPS per watt. The W7600 is more than twice as efficient in FP32 throughput per watt. Its single-slot form factor and 300 W suggested PSU make it far easier to integrate into existing workstations.

The MI350P's 50th percentile ranking and zero benchmark scores reflect its status as an unmeasured product in the database, not a performance judgment. The W7600's 93rd percentile ranking and benchmark scores of 81,528 in OpenCL and 92,688 in Vulkan provide concrete evidence of its standing relative to other GPUs. The nearest rivals for the W7600 include the NVIDIA RTX A4500 at 91,671 (-5% delta), the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile at 91,134 (-4.4% delta), and the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 at 87,445 (-0.4% delta). The W7600's average score of 87,108 places it just below the Quadro GP100 and above the NVIDIA CMP 40HX at 85,637 (1.7% delta).

The MI350P targets rack-mounted compute nodes where graphics output, API compatibility, and power efficiency are secondary to raw compute and memory scale. The W7600 targets desktop workstations where display output, software compatibility, and moderate power draw are essential. The data presents two specialized tools for different jobs, not interchangeable alternatives.