AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI350X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. Both entries hold a 50th percentile ranking against all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero for each. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and neither part registers a win in matched tests. This absence of measured results means any comparative performance claims must rely entirely on the architectural and specification differences captured in the database.

The Instinct MI350X is built around the MI350 256CU chip with a CDNA 4.0 architecture, delivering 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32 and FP16 compute. The Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with an RDNA 3.0 architecture, producing 7.885 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16. The raw compute gap is substantial, roughly nine times higher for the Instinct part, but the two products target entirely different workloads. The MI350X has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and zero pixel rate, while the W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, with a 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate.

Texture throughput tells a similar story. The Instinct MI350X reaches 2,252.8 GTexel/s, while the W7400 manages 123.2 GTexel/s. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs, versus 1,792 shading units and 112 TMUs for the W7400. The W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores and 64 ROPs, while the MI350X lists zero ROPs and no ray tracing cores. These are not competing in the same segment, and the database reflects that with no matched benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Instinct MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS of FP32, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 provides 7.885 TFLOPS. The MI350X is approximately nine times higher in this metric.

Q: Does the Instinct MI350X support display outputs?

A: No. The Instinct MI350X has no display outputs. The Radeon PRO W7400 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: Which product supports modern graphics APIs?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Instinct MI350X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The Instinct MI350X uses 288 GB of HBM3e with an 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: The Instinct MI350X is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the Radeon PRO W7400 uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC.

Q: Which card has a higher power draw?

A: The Instinct MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W with a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Architecture Differences

The Instinct MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built around the MI350 256CU chip. This is a compute-focused design with no graphics pipeline. The database records zero ROPs, no ray tracing cores, and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The architecture prioritizes raw FP32 and FP16 throughput at 72.09 TFLOPS each. The transistor count is 185,000 million on a die size of 2380 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 77.7M per mm². The process node is 3 nm at TSMC.

The Radeon PRO W7400 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed "Hotpink Bonefish," based on the Navi 33 chip. This is a graphics-oriented design with a full feature set: 28 ray tracing cores, 64 ROPs, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The transistor count is 13,300 million on a 204 mm² die, giving a density of 65.2M per mm². The process node is 6 nm at TSMC.

The architectural philosophies diverge sharply. The MI350X is an accelerator for compute workloads, with no display engine and no graphics API. The W7400 is a workstation graphics card with display outputs and full graphics API coverage. The MI350X uses HBM3e memory, while the W7400 uses GDDR6. The MI350X has no pixel rate (0 MPixel/s), whereas the W7400 achieves 70.40 GPixel/s. These are fundamentally different products from the same vendor, sharing only the AMD brand.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded field. The process node is 3 nm for the MI350X versus 6 nm for the W7400. Transistor count is 185,000 million versus 13,300 million. Die size is 2380 mm² versus 204 mm². Transistor density is 77.7M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm².

Base clocks are 1000 MHz for the MI350X and 330 MHz for the W7400. Boost clocks are 2200 MHz versus 1100 MHz. Memory clock is 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the MI350X versus 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) for the W7400.

Memory size is 288 GB of HBM3e versus 8 GB of GDDR6. Bus width is 8192 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 172.8 GB/s.

Shading units are 16,384 versus 1,792. TMUs are 1,024 versus 112. ROPs are 0 versus 64. Ray tracing cores are absent on the MI350X and 28 on the W7400.

Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. FP32 is 72.09 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS. FP16 is 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1).

TDP is 1000 W versus 55 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus Single-slot. Power connectors are None for both, but the suggested PSU is 1400 W versus 250 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8.

Display outputs are No outputs versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1. APIs are N/A versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4.

Dimensions differ: the MI350X is 102 mm long and 165 mm wide, while the W7400 is 168 mm long, 69 mm high, and 20 mm wide. The W7400 is listed as Active in production status, while the MI350X has no production status recorded.

Release dates are 2025-06-11 for the MI350X and 2025-08-02 for the W7400. Predecessors are Radeon Instinct for the MI350X and Radeon Pro Vega for the W7400.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI350X wins decisively in compute throughput. Its FP32 and FP16 performance of 72.09 TFLOPS is roughly nine times the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. Texture rate is 2,252.8 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, a factor of about 18. Memory bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 172.8 GB/s, a factor of about 47. Memory capacity is 288 GB versus 8 GB, a factor of 36. The MI350X uses HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, while the W7400 uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The MI350X also has a larger transistor count (185,000 million versus 13,300 million) and a smaller process node (3 nm versus 6 nm). These advantages point to workloads that demand massive parallel compute, large memory footprints, and high bandwidth, such as AI training, scientific simulation, and data center inference.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in graphics and display functionality. It has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the MI350X has none. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI350X lists N/A for all three. The W7400 has a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s versus 0 MPixel/s. It includes 28 ray tracing cores and 64 ROPs, both absent on the MI350X. The W7400 also has a much lower TDP of 55 W versus 1000 W, with a suggested PSU of 250 W versus 1400 W. The W7400 is a single-slot card with a conventional form factor (168 mm length, 69 mm height, 20 mm width), while the MI350X is an OAM module. These features suit professional graphics tasks, CAD, 3D rendering, and workstation visualization.

The Verdict

The database shows two products with no direct benchmark overlap, but the specification differences are clear enough to separate their intended roles. The AMD Instinct MI350X is a compute accelerator with no graphics output, no API support, and a 1000 W TDP. It delivers 72.09 TFLOPS in FP32 and FP16, 288 GB of HBM3e memory, and 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a workstation graphics card with 4x DisplayPort 2.1, full DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support, and a 55 W TDP. It provides 7.885 TFLOPS, 8 GB of GDDR6, and 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth.

Users requiring massive compute density, large memory capacities, and extreme bandwidth should select the Instinct MI350X. Its 3 nm process, 185,000 million transistors, and 2380 mm² die enable performance levels the W7400 cannot approach. The absence of display outputs and graphics APIs confirms this is a server or data center part, not a desktop or workstation graphics solution.

Users needing professional graphics acceleration with display connectivity should select the Radeon PRO W7400. Its 28 ray tracing cores, 64 ROPs, and 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate support rendering workloads. The 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and API support make it a functional workstation card. The 55 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU also make it suitable for systems where power is a constraint.

The two cards do not compete. The data places them in separate categories, and the recorded specifications reinforce that division. The MI350X is for compute, the W7400 is for graphics. Neither card has any benchmark wins in the database, and their percentile rankings are identical at 50, but the specification gaps are so wide that any direct comparison would be misleading. The absence of head-to-head results is consistent with the products' divergent designs.