AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain any direct head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Instinct MI350X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and the win counters for both cards are zero. This means there is no recorded data where both cards were tested under identical conditions in the same workload.

The MI350X has no benchmark entries in the database at all. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and its percentile versus all GPUs is 50. The Radeon PRO W7500, however, has a full set of nine benchmark results. Its average benchmark score is 16,415, and its percentile versus all GPUs is 59. The absence of MI350X scores makes a direct numerical comparison impossible from the recorded data.

The Radeon PRO W7500 shows a Geekbench OpenCL score of 58,213 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 68,634. In Passmark tests, it scores 65 in DirectX 10, 125 in DirectX 11, 46 in DirectX 12, and 200 in DirectX 9. Its Passmark G2D score is 1,174, G3D is 13,368, and GPU compute is 5,910.

The nearest rivals for the Radeon PRO W7500 are all within a narrow band. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell has an average score of 16,408, which is a 0% delta. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 16,361, a 0.3% advantage for the W7500. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 16,351, a 0.4% advantage. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 scores 16,504, which is 0.5% higher than the W7500. These results indicate the W7500 sits in a tightly contested performance cluster.

Since the MI350X has no benchmark scores, the data cannot confirm any performance relationship between the two cards. The MI350X is a compute-oriented accelerator with no display outputs, while the W7500 is a workstation graphics card with four DisplayPort outputs. The recorded data simply does not include any overlapping tests.

FAQ

Q: Why does the AMD Instinct MI350X have no benchmark scores in the database?

A: The MI350X has an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile versus all GPUs of 50. The database contains no recorded test results for this card.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Radeon PRO W7500?

A: The W7500 has an average benchmark score of 16,415. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, scores 16,408, which is a 0% delta.

Q: How does the Radeon PRO W7500 compare to the GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 in the database?

A: The RTX 5090 D V2 has an average score of 16,504, which is 0.5% higher than the W7500's 16,415. This is the largest negative delta among the W7500's nearest rivals.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking, the MI350X or the W7500?

A: The W7500 has a percentile of 59 versus all GPUs. The MI350X has a percentile of 50. The W7500 ranks higher in the database's overall distribution.

Q: Does the MI350X have any display outputs?

A: No. The MI350X lists "No outputs" as its display outputs. The W7500 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: What is the Passmark G3D score for the Radeon PRO W7500?

A: The Passmark G3D score is 13,368. The Passmark GPU compute score is 5,910, and the Passmark G2D score is 1,174.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split between these two AMD products. The Radeon PRO W7500 is the only one with measurable performance in the database. Its average benchmark score of 16,415 places it in a competitive cluster with the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell at 16,408, the RX 5700 XT at 16,361, the Radeon Pro 5600M at 16,351, and the RTX 5090 D V2 at 16,504. The W7500 also has a higher percentile ranking at 59, compared to the MI350X at 50.

The Instinct MI350X offers no benchmark data to evaluate. Its recorded specifications point to a different purpose entirely. It uses 288 GB of HBM3e memory with a 8192-bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The W7500 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The W7500 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 and 72.09 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). The W7500 delivers 12.19 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.37 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

For any workload that requires the W7500's feature set, the choice is straightforward. The W7500 is the only card with recorded benchmark results, display outputs, and API support. For workloads that need the MI350X's massive memory capacity and compute throughput, the W7500 cannot substitute, but the database contains no scores to confirm the MI350X's performance advantage.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The MI350X uses a 3 nm process node, while the W7500 uses 6 nm. Transistor counts are 185,000 million for the MI350X versus 13,300 million for the W7500. Die size is 2380 mm² for the MI350X and 204 mm² for the W7500. Transistor density is 77.7M per mm² for the MI350X and 65.2M per mm² for the W7500.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The MI350X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The W7500 has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz. Memory clocks are recorded as 2000 MHz 8 Gbps effective for the MI350X and 2000 MHz 16 Gbps effective for the W7500.

Memory configuration is vastly different. The MI350X has 288 GB of HBM3e on a 8192-bit bus with 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 TMUs, and 0 ROPs. The W7500 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI350X has 28 RT cores recorded, while the W7500 has 28 RT cores as well.

Power and physical specifications diverge. The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W and a suggested PSU of 1400 W. The W7500 has a TDP of 70 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MI350X uses an OAM Module slot width, while the W7500 is single-slot. The MI350X has no power connectors, as does the W7500. The MI350X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7500 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The MI350X has dimensions of 102 mm length and 165 mm width. The W7500 has dimensions of 216 mm length, 115 mm height, and 20 mm width. The MI350X has no display outputs, while the W7500 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The MI350X has no API support recorded for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The MI350X is built on CDNA 4.0 architecture with the MI350 256CU chip. The W7500 is built on RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. The MI350X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, while the W7500 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation.

The MI350X uses a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the W7500 uses a 6 nm process at TSMC. The MI350X has 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die. The W7500 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The MI350X's transistor density is 77.7M per mm², while the W7500's is 65.2M per mm².

The MI350X has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 TMUs but 0 ROPs. The W7500 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Both cards record 28 RT cores, though the MI350X lists them as null in the data. The MI350X has no tensor cores recorded. The W7500 also has no tensor cores recorded.

The MI350X uses HBM3e memory with 288 GB capacity, an 8192-bit bus, and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The W7500 uses GDDR6 memory with 8 GB capacity, a 128-bit bus, and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI350X's memory clock is 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the W7500's is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective.

The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 and 72.09 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The W7500 delivers 12.19 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.37 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The MI350X has a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, while the W7500 has 108.8 GPixel/s. The MI350X has a texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s, while the W7500 has 190.4 GTexel/s.

The MI350X has no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X has no display outputs, while the W7500 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The MI350X uses an OAM Module form factor, while the W7500 is a single-slot card.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W7500 wins in every category where the database has recorded performance data. It has nine benchmark scores, including Geekbench OpenCL at 58,213 and Geekbench Vulkan at 68,634. Its Passmark scores range from 46 in DirectX 12 to 200 in DirectX 9. The W7500's average benchmark score of 16,415 and percentile of 59 confirm it is a functional, measurable GPU.

The W7500 also wins on practical workstation features. It has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It uses a single-slot design with a 70 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Its dimensions are 216 mm by 115 mm by 20 mm. It has a launch MSRP of 429 USD.

The Instinct MI350X wins on raw specification sheets. It has 288 GB of HBM3e memory versus 8 GB of GDDR6. Its bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. Its FP32 throughput is 72.09 TFLOPS versus 12.19 TFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput is 72.09 TFLOPS versus 24.37 TFLOPS. It has 16,384 shading units versus 1,792, and 1,024 TMUs versus 112.

The MI350X also wins on process technology. It uses a 3 nm node versus 6 nm. It has 185,000 million transistors versus 13,300 million. Its die size is 2380 mm² versus 204 mm². Its transistor density is 77.7M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm². It uses PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8.

The MI350X has a 1000 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 1400 W, indicating a power-hungry accelerator. The W7500 has a 70 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W, indicating an efficient workstation card. The MI350X has no display outputs and no API support, while the W7500 has full display and API support.

The database records no wins for either card in head-to-head tests. The MI350X has no benchmark entries, so its wins cannot be quantified. The W7500 has benchmarks but no head-to-head comparisons against the MI350X. The recorded data supports the W7500 as the only card with measured performance, while the MI350X remains a specification-only entry.