AMD Instinct MI350P vs AMD Radeon PRO W7700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Instinct MI350P contains no benchmark entries, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has two recorded results. This makes a direct numerical comparison impossible. The database shows the MI350P with an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. The W7700, by contrast, holds a percentile rank of 95, placing it well above the midpoint of the recorded GPU population.

The W7700 delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 108,245 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 129,706. Its average benchmark score across these two tests is 118,976. The MI350P lacks any comparable entries in the database, so its performance cannot be quantified against the W7700's recorded figures. The absence of data for the MI350P means the head-to-head comparison rests entirely on the W7700's side of the ledger.

The W7700's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its standing. The NVIDIA GB10 posts an average score of 117,393, which is 1.3% behind the W7700. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation averages 117,088, a 1.6% deficit. The NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB averages 114,395, trailing by 4%. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile averages 113,944, sitting 4.4% lower. These deltas indicate the W7700 leads each of these four competitors by narrow margins, with the gap widening as scores decline.

Since the MI350P has no benchmark records, the database shows zero wins for either side in a direct comparison. The W7700's data stands alone, and the MI350P's performance profile remains unmeasured. Any assessment of relative speed between the two cards cannot be derived from the current set of measurements.

Where Each One Wins

The W7700 wins on every measurable front because it is the only card with recorded benchmark data. Its OpenCL result of 108,245 and Vulkan result of 129,706 demonstrate capability in both compute and graphics API workloads. The Vulkan score exceeds the OpenCL score by 21,461 points, indicating stronger performance under the Vulkan API in the recorded tests.

The W7700's average score of 118,976 places it 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GB10, 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, 4% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, and 4.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile. These margins, while modest, show consistent superiority across the nearest rival group.

The MI350P cannot claim any wins because the database contains no benchmark entries for it. Its percentile rank of 50 sits at the median of all recorded GPUs, but without actual scores, this rank carries no comparative weight against the W7700's 95th percentile position. The W7700's 95th percentile means it outperforms the vast majority of GPUs in the database, while the MI350P's 50th percentile offers no such distinction.

For use cases, the W7700's display outputs (4x DisplayPort 2.1) and API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4) make it suitable for graphics-oriented workloads. The MI350P has no display outputs and lists N/A for all APIs, marking it as a compute-only device. The W7700's pixel rate of 249.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 499.2 GTexel/s give it measurable rasterization throughput, while the MI350P's pixel rate is recorded as 0 MPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The MI350P uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The W7700 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. The MI350P's chip is labeled "MI350 128CU" and belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation. The W7700's chip is Navi 32, codenamed "Wheat Nas," and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation.

The MI350P packs 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 61.3 million per square millimeter. The W7700 contains 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, with a higher density of 81.2 million per square millimeter. The MI350P's larger die and higher transistor count reflect its data-center orientation, while the W7700's smaller die and denser packing suit a workstation form factor.

Memory architectures diverge sharply. The MI350P uses 144 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The W7700 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 576.0 GB/s. The MI350P's memory bandwidth exceeds the W7700's by an order of magnitude, and its capacity is nine times larger.

Shader resources differ as well. The MI350P has 8,192 shading units and 512 texture mapping units (TMUs), with no ROPs recorded. The W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The MI350P also includes 48 ray tracing cores on the W7700, while the MI350P lists none. The MI350P's texture rate is 1,126.4 GTexel/s, more than double the W7700's 499.2 GTexel/s. The W7700's pixel rate stands at 249.6 GPixel/s, whereas the MI350P's is 0 MPixel/s.

Compute throughput figures show a nuanced split. The MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS for FP32 and the same 36.04 TFLOPS for FP16, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The W7700 delivers 31.95 TFLOPS for FP32 and 63.90 TFLOPS for FP16, a 2:1 ratio. In FP32, the MI350P leads by 4.09 TFLOPS. In FP16, the W7700 leads by 27.86 TFLOPS.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The MI350P runs at a base of 1000 MHz and a boost of 2200 MHz. The W7700 runs at a base of 1900 MHz and a boost of 2600 MHz. The W7700's clocks are higher at both ends, with a boost 400 MHz above the MI350P's. Memory clocks also differ: the MI350P's memory runs at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective), while the W7700's memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Power and interface specifications set the two apart. The MI350P has a TDP of 600 W, requires a 1000 W suggested PSU, and uses a single 16-pin power connector. The W7700 has a TDP of 190 W, requires a 450 W suggested PSU, and uses a single 8-pin connector. The MI350P connects via PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Physical dimensions show the MI350P at 267 mm length (10.5 inches), 111 mm height (4.4 inches), and 40 mm width (1.6 inches). The W7700 measures 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, with no width recorded.

Release dates are separated by roughly two and a half years. The W7700 launched on 2023-11-12, while the MI350P is dated 2026-05-06. The W7700's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, and the MI350P's predecessor is the Radeon Instinct.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has an average benchmark score of 118,976. The AMD Instinct MI350P has an average benchmark score of 0 in the database.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The MI350P uses 144 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The W7700 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their FP32 and FP16 compute figures compare?

A: The MI350P delivers 36.04 TFLOPS for FP32 and 36.04 TFLOPS for FP16 (1:1 ratio). The W7700 delivers 31.95 TFLOPS for FP32 and 63.90 TFLOPS for FP16 (2:1 ratio). The MI350P leads in FP32, while the W7700 leads in FP16.

Q: Which card supports display outputs and graphics APIs?

A: The W7700 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350P has no display outputs and lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MI350P has a TDP of 600 W, a suggested PSU of 1000 W, and a 1x 16-pin power connector. The W7700 has a TDP of 190 W, a suggested PSU of 450 W, and a 1x 8-pin power connector.

Q: How does the MI350P's percentile rank compare to the W7700's?

A: The MI350P sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The W7700 sits at the 95th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Instinct MI350P | AMD Radeon PRO W7700 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 4.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 73,000 million | 28,100 million |

| Die size | 1190 mm² | 346 mm² |

| Transistor density | 61.3M / mm² | 81.2M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1000 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2200 MHz | 2600 MHz |

| Memory clock | 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) |

| Memory size | 144 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory bus width | 8192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 8192 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 512 | 192 |

| ROPs | 0 | 96 |

| RT cores | None | 48 |

| Pixel rate | 0 MPixel/s | 249.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 1,126.4 GTexel/s | 499.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 36.04 TFLOPS | 31.95 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 36.04 TFLOPS (1:1) | 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 600 W | 190 W |

| Power connectors | 1x 16-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1000 W | 450 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Width | 40 mm (1.6 inches) | Not recorded |

| Release date | 2026-05-06 | 2023-11-12 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 999 USD |

Fields not listed above, such as codename, series, production status, and successor, either match or are absent for both cards.

The Verdict

The data separates these two cards by purpose and by measurement. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is a fully recorded product with benchmark scores, a 95th percentile rank, and an average score of 118,976. It leads its nearest rivals, the NVIDIA GB10, RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, and RTX A5500 Mobile, by margins from 1.3% to 4.4%. Its display outputs, API support, and 16 GB of GDDR6 memory suit graphics and workstation tasks. Its 31.95 TFLOPS of FP32 and 63.90 TFLOPS of FP16 provide measurable compute throughput, with the FP16 figure doubling its FP32 output.

The AMD Instinct MI350P has no benchmark entries, no display outputs, and no API support. Its 50th percentile rank and average score of zero offer no basis for performance claims. What the database does show is a compute-focused design: 144 GB of HBM3e, 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth, 8,192 shading units, and 36.04 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16. Its 600 W TDP and PCIe 5.0 interface align with a data-center accelerator role, not a workstation graphics card.

Choosing between them depends on the workload. The W7700 is the only option with measurable performance, and its recorded results place it comfortably above the median. The MI350P's specifications point toward memory-bandwidth-intensive compute, but the absence of benchmark data prevents any quantitative confirmation. The database records what it records: the W7700 has evidence of performance, and the MI350P does not. Users seeking a card with verified benchmark results and graphics capability should consider the W7700. Users requiring the MI350P's memory capacity and bandwidth must accept that its performance remains unverified in the current dataset.