AMD Instinct MI350P vs AMD Radeon PRO W7900 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain any shared benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI350P and the AMD Radeon PRO W7900, so a direct score-to-score comparison cannot be derived from recorded measurements. The MI350P has no benchmark entries in the database, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs. The W7900, by contrast, has two recorded benchmarks: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 84379 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 137070. Its average benchmark score is 110725, and it sits at the 94th percentile of all GPUs.

Because the MI350P returns no measured scores, the head-to-head analysis must rely on the W7900's nearest rivals instead. The W7900's average score of 110725 places it 1% above the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (average score 109617), 3.2% above the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X (average score 107342), 2.8% below the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (average score 113944), and 3.2% below the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (average score 114395). This indicates that, in the existing database, the W7900 is positioned in the middle of a tight cluster of professional workstation and datacenter cards, with its closest competitor being the Pro Vega II at just a 1% gap.

The MI350P's 50th percentile rank, combined with no recorded average score, means the database treats it as an unmeasured entry. Its raw specification sheet, however, suggests a very different performance class. The MI350P lists an FP32 rate of 36.04 TFLOPS and an FP16 rate of 36.04 TFLOPS (1:1), while the W7900 lists an FP32 rate of 61.32 TFLOPS and an FP16 rate of 61.32 TFLOPS (1:1). The W7900 is 70% higher in both FP32 and FP16 throughput according to the recorded figures. In texture rate, the MI350P shows 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus the W7900's 958.1 GTexel/s, which puts the MI350P roughly 18% ahead. In pixel rate, the W7900 shows 479.0 GPixel/s while the MI350P shows 0 MPixel/s, reflecting an absence of raster operation units on the MI350P.

The memory figures diverge sharply. The MI350P carries 144 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The W7900 carries 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 864.0 GB/s. The MI350P's bandwidth is roughly 9.5 times higher. The MI350P also has 8192 shading units and 512 texture mapping units, versus 6144 shading units and 384 texture mapping units on the W7900, which represents a 33% advantage in each count. The W7900 has 192 ROPs and 96 ray tracing cores; the MI350P has no ROPs and no listed ray tracing cores.

Clock behavior also differs. The W7900 has a base clock of 1760 MHz and a boost clock of 2495 MHz, while the MI350P has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The W7900 runs at substantially higher clock frequencies, which explains its higher FP32 figure despite fewer shading units. The MI350P compensates with a much larger memory subsystem and a higher texture rate.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI350P have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The MI350P has an empty benchmarks list, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile rank of 50 among all GPUs.

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the AMD Radeon PRO W7900?

A: The W7900 has an average benchmark score of 110725, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 84379 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 137070.

Q: How does the W7900 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W7900 is 1% above the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II, 3.2% above the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X, 2.8% below the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile, and 3.2% below the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The MI350P has 144 GB of HBM3e with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, while the W7900 has 48 GB of GDDR6 with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: The W7900, at 61.32 TFLOPS, compared to the MI350P's 36.04 TFLOPS.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The MI350P uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the W7900 uses a 5 nm process from TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The MI350P wins in memory capacity, memory bandwidth, texture rate, shading unit count, and texture mapping unit count. Its 144 GB of HBM3e and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth serve workloads that saturate memory, such as large model inference or high-resolution data processing. Its 1,126.4 GTexel/s texture rate is the highest recorded figure between the two, and its 8192 shading units and 512 TMUs provide a larger parallel execution footprint. The MI350P also uses a 3 nm process node, giving it a smaller transistor geometry than the W7900's 5 nm node.

The W7900 wins in FP32 and FP16 compute, pixel rate, clock speeds, and API support. Its 61.32 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 is nearly double the MI350P's figures. Its 479.0 GPixel/s pixel rate is functional, while the MI350P lists 0 MPixel/s. The W7900 boosts to 2495 MHz versus the MI350P's 2200 MHz, and it carries DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, whereas the MI350P lists N/A for all three APIs. The W7900 also has display outputs (3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1), while the MI350P has no outputs.

For rendering and graphics-oriented tasks, the W7900's pixel rate, ray tracing cores, and API coverage give it a clear functional advantage. For memory-bound compute tasks, the MI350P's bandwidth and capacity are the dominant factors.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The MI350P uses a 3 nm TSMC process with 73,000 million transistors on a 1190 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 61.3M per mm². The W7900 uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The MI350P has a larger absolute transistor count and die size, but the W7900 has a higher transistor density.

Clock speeds differ: the MI350P runs at 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost, while the W7900 runs at 1760 MHz base and 2495 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the MI350P lists 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the W7900 lists 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The MI350P uses 144 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus; the W7900 uses 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 864.0 GB/s.

Compute unit counts differ: the MI350P has 8192 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 0 ROPs, while the W7900 has 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The W7900 adds 96 ray tracing cores; the MI350P lists none. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s on the MI350P and 479.0 GPixel/s on the W7900. Texture rate is 1,126.4 GTexel/s versus 958.1 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specs differ as well. The MI350P has a TDP of 600 W, uses one 16-pin connector, suggests a 1000 W PSU, and is dual-slot with dimensions of 267 mm length, 111 mm height, and 40 mm width. The W7900 has a TDP of 295 W, uses two 8-pin connectors, suggests a 600 W PSU, and is triple-slot with dimensions of 280 mm length, 110 mm height, and 51 mm width. The MI350P uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the W7900 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI350P has no display outputs; the W7900 has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The MI350P lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan; the W7900 lists 12 Ultimate (12_2), 4.6, and 1.4 respectively.

Architecture Differences

The MI350P is built on CDNA 4.0 architecture under the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the W7900 is built on RDNA 3.0 architecture under the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The MI350P's chip is labeled "MI350 128CU" and the W7900's chip is labeled "Navi 31" with the codename "Plum Bonito". The MI350P's predecessor is "Radeon Instinct"; the W7900's predecessor is "Radeon Pro Vega". The MI350P lists no production status, while the W7900 is listed as "Active".

The architectural split explains the functional differences. CDNA 4.0 targets compute acceleration with no display pipeline, no graphics API support, and no raster operations. RDNA 3.0 targets professional graphics with full API coverage, ray tracing cores, and display outputs. The MI350P's 8192 shading units and 512 TMUs serve parallel compute workloads, while its 0 ROPs and 0 MPixel/s pixel rate confirm it is not designed for rasterization. The W7900's 192 ROPs, 479.0 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 96 ray tracing cores confirm it is a graphics-oriented part.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. HBM3e on the MI350P provides 8.19 TB/s over an 8192-bit bus, which is a stacked memory design suited to bandwidth-hungry compute. GDDR6 on the W7900 provides 864.0 GB/s over a 384-bit bus, a conventional discrete memory design. The MI350P's transistor count of 73,000 million and die size of 1190 mm² reflect a large compute-focused die; the W7900's 57,700 million transistors and 529 mm² die reflect a smaller graphics-focused die with higher transistor density.

The Verdict

The data indicates two different products for two different roles. The AMD Instinct MI350P, with no benchmark scores, no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no raster operations, is a compute accelerator. Its 144 GB of HBM3e, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, 8192 shading units, and 1,126.4 GTexel/s texture rate point to memory-bound and parallel compute workloads. Its 600 W TDP and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface match a datacenter or server installation profile.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900, with measured benchmarks, a 94th percentile rank among all GPUs, full API support, display outputs, and 479.0 GPixel/s pixel rate, is a professional graphics card. Its 61.32 TFLOPS FP32 and FP16 figures are higher than the MI350P's 36.04 TFLOPS, and its 96 ray tracing cores and 192 ROPs make it suitable for rendering and graphics workloads. Its 295 W TDP and PCIe 4.0 x16 interface are more modest than the MI350P's.

The recorded data does not place the MI350P in a performance ranking, so its percentile rank of 50 should not be read as a measured result. The W7900's average benchmark score of 110725 and its nearest-rival deltas of 1% to 3.2% show it sits in a competitive band with other professional cards. The MI350P's specifications, particularly memory bandwidth and capacity, exceed the W7900 in areas that matter for large-scale compute, while the W7900 exceeds the MI350P in raw FP32 throughput, pixel processing, and graphics features. Each card wins in the category it was designed for.