AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows that the AMD Instinct MI350X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 are not directly comparable in conventional benchmark tests. The MI350X has no benchmark scores recorded in the database, with an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile ranking of 50 among all GPUs. The W7600, by contrast, has two recorded benchmark results: a Geekbench OpenCL score of 81,528 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 92,688. Its average benchmark score is 87,108, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs.

Because the MI350X lacks any benchmark entries, there are no head-to-head test results to compare. The wins tally shows zero for each product. This absence of data is itself informative: the MI350X is a compute accelerator with no display outputs, designed for a different workload class than the W7600, which is a workstation graphics card. The database records no overlapping performance measurements, so any direct numerical comparison of their compute capabilities would be speculative.

The W7600's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its performance tier. It sits within 5% of several NVIDIA professional cards: the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scores 87,445 (0.4% lower than the W7600), the NVIDIA CMP 40HX scores 85,637 (1.7% lower), the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile scores 91,134 (4.4% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 scores 91,671 (5.0% higher). These deltas place the W7600 firmly in the upper-middle range of professional GPUs, though the MI350X has no such rival data to anchor its position.

Architecture Differences

The two AMD products use fundamentally different architectures. The MI350X is built on CDNA 4.0, AMD's compute-optimized design, while the W7600 uses RDNA 3.0, a graphics-focused architecture. This distinction drives nearly every other specification difference.

The process nodes diverge sharply. The MI350X uses a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the W7600 uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. Transistor counts reflect this gap: the MI350X packs 185,000 million transistors on a 2,380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7 million per square millimeter. The W7600 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The MI350X is a massive chip, more than ten times the W7600's transistor count and over eleven times its die area.

Memory configurations could not be more different. The MI350X carries 288 GB of HBM3e memory across an 8,192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI350X's memory bandwidth is roughly 28 times higher, a direct consequence of its HBM3e stack and enormous bus width.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The MI350X has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 texture mapping units, producing a texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s and an FP32 throughput of 72.09 TFLOPS. Its FP16 rate matches FP32 at 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The W7600 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, delivering 312.3 GTexel/s and 19.99 TFLOPS FP32. Its FP16 rate is 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), meaning it processes FP16 at twice the FP32 rate. The MI350X has no ROPs and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, confirming its lack of rasterization hardware. The W7600 has a pixel rate of 156.2 GPixel/s and includes 32 ray tracing cores, a feature absent from the MI350X's specification list.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The W7600 runs at a base of 1,720 MHz and boosts to 2,440 MHz, with memory at 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The MI350X has a lower base of 1,000 MHz and a boost of 2,200 MHz, with memory at 2,000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). Despite lower clocks, the MI350X's massive parallel resources give it far higher aggregate throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The MI350X wins decisively in raw compute density and memory capacity. Its 72.09 TFLOPS FP32 output is 3.6 times the W7600's 19.99 TFLOPS. Its 288 GB memory capacity is 36 times larger, and its 8.19 TB/s bandwidth is 28.4 times higher. For workloads that scale with memory size and bandwidth, such as large model inference or massive matrix operations, the MI350X is the clear choice. Its 3 nm process and 186 billion transistor budget indicate a design optimized for throughput over efficiency per watt.

The W7600 wins in graphics-specific features and practical deployability. It has 32 ray tracing cores, four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and full API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI350X lists no APIs, no display outputs, and no graphics pipeline. The W7600 also has a functional rasterization pipeline with 64 ROPs and a 156.2 GPixel/s pixel rate, while the MI350X has zero ROPs and a zero pixel rate. For any visual output, rendering, or real-time graphics task, the W7600 is the only option of the two.

Power and physical requirements also separate them. The MI350X has a TDP of 1,000 W and requires a 1,400 W power supply, while the W7600 has a TDP of 130 W and needs only a 300 W PSU. The MI350X is an OAM module measuring 102 mm by 165 mm with no power connectors (power delivered through the module interface), whereas the W7600 is a single-slot card at 241 mm by 115 mm with a single 6-pin connector. The W7600 is production-active and was released on 2023-08-02, while the MI350X has no production status listed and a release date of 2025-06-11.

The Verdict

The data indicates these are not competing products. The MI350X is a compute accelerator with no graphics outputs, no API support, and no recorded benchmarks. The W7600 is a workstation graphics card with full display and API support, a 93rd percentile performance ranking, and a measured average benchmark score of 87,108.

For users requiring massive memory capacity (288 GB), extreme bandwidth (8.19 TB/s), or high FP32 throughput (72.09 TFLOPS), the MI350X is the only choice. Its CDNA 4.0 architecture and 3 nm process deliver compute resources that dwarf the W7600 by every raw metric. However, it cannot output video, lacks rasterization hardware, and has no benchmark data to validate real-world performance.

For users needing a functional graphics card with ray tracing, DisplayPort outputs, and API compatibility, the W7600 is the clear selection. Its 19.99 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 156.2 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 32 RT cores make it a capable workstation GPU. Its benchmark scores place it slightly below the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (5.0% lower) and RTX A4500 Mobile (4.4% lower), but slightly above the Quadro GP100 (0.4% higher) and CMP 40HX (1.7% higher). The W7600's 130 W TDP and single-slot design are practical for standard workstations, while the MI350X's 1,000 W TDP and OAM form factor require specialized server infrastructure.

The verdict is straightforward: pick the MI350X for compute-focused, memory-hungry workloads with no display requirement. Pick the W7600 for graphics, rendering, or any task requiring video output or API-level graphics support. The database contains no evidence that either can substitute for the other.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Instinct MI350X support DirectX or Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan as "N/A" for the MI350X. The Radeon PRO W7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The MI350X provides 8.19 TB/s from 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8,192-bit bus. The W7600 provides 288.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the performance percentile of the Radeon PRO W7600?

A: The W7600 ranks in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 87,108. The MI350X has a 50th percentile ranking and an average score of 0 due to no recorded benchmarks.

Q: Does the MI350X have display outputs?

A: No. The MI350X lists "No outputs" for display connections. The W7600 has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The MI350X has a TDP of 1,000 W and a suggested PSU of 1,400 W. The W7600 has a TDP of 130 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W, using a single 6-pin power connector.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing cores?

A: The W7600 has 32 ray tracing cores. The MI350X lists no ray tracing cores in its specifications.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI350X | AMD Radeon PRO W7600 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 4.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 185,000 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 2,380 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 77.7M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1,000 MHz | 1,720 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2,200 MHz | 2,440 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2,000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) | 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 288 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8,192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 16,384 | 2,048 |

| TMUs | 1,024 | 128 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None listed | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 156.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,252.8 GTexel/s | 312.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 72.09 TFLOPS | 19.99 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) | 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 1,000 W | 130 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 1,400 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

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

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

| OpenGL Support | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 102 mm (4 inches) length, 165 mm (6.5 inches) width | 241 mm (9.5 inches) length, 115 mm (4.5 inches) height |

| Release Date | 2025-06-11 | 2023-08-02 |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 599 USD |

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 50 | 93 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 0 | 87,108 |