AMD Instinct MI350X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Instinct MI350X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7700. The MI350X has no benchmark scores in the database, showing an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile against all GPUs of 50. The Radeon PRO W7700, by contrast, has two recorded Geekbench scores: 108245 in OpenCL and 129706 in Vulkan, averaging 118976. This places the W7700 in the 95th percentile against all GPUs.

Because the MI350X has no measured results, direct numerical comparisons cannot be made. The data does show that the W7700 sits closely against several NVIDIA rivals. The nearest rival, the NVIDIA GB10, scores 117393, which is 1.3% below the W7700's average. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation trails by 1.6% with a score of 117088. The NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB scores 114395, a 4% deficit, while the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile scores 113944, 4.4% behind. These margins indicate a competitive cluster around the W7700, with the AMD card leading each of these comparisons by modest single-digit percentages.

The absence of MI350X benchmark data means the database cannot confirm performance leadership in either direction. The MI350X's 50th percentile ranking is a default position reflecting no recorded results, not a measured standing. Any interpretation of relative speed must rely on architectural specifications rather than observed benchmark outcomes.

Architecture Differences

The two accelerators target fundamentally different workloads, and the architectural data makes this explicit. The MI350X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture on a 3 nm process from TSMC, while the W7700 uses RDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm process, also from TSMC. The MI350X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, whereas the W7700 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation.

The MI350X chip, designated MI350 256CU, contains 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 77.7 million per mm². The W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip with 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, giving a density of 81.2 million per mm². The density figures are close, but the scale difference is enormous: the MI350X packs over six times the transistor count on a die nearly seven times larger.

Shading unit counts differ by a factor of more than five. The MI350X has 16384 shading units and 1024 texture mapping units, with no ROPs recorded. The W7700 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The MI350X reports a texture rate of 2,252.8 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 0 MPixel/s, consistent with a compute-focused design that does not rasterize. The W7700 delivers 499.2 GTexel/s and 249.6 GPixel/s.

Clock behavior also diverges. The MI350X runs at a 1000 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost, while the W7700 operates at 1900 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the MI350X's massive shader count produces much higher peak throughput: 72.09 TFLOPS for FP32 and the same 72.09 TFLOPS for FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The W7700 achieves 31.95 TFLOPS FP32 and 63.90 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the MI350X has more than double the FP32 throughput and about 13% higher FP16 throughput.

Memory systems could not be more different. The MI350X uses 288 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 MI350X memory operates at 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the W7700 memory runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The bandwidth gap is roughly 14-to-1 in favor of the MI350X.

Power and physical specifications reinforce the intended use cases. The MI350X has a TDP of 1000 W, uses an OAM Module slot width, has no power connectors listed, and suggests a 1400 W PSU. It provides no display outputs and has no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support. The W7700 has a 190 W TDP, uses a dual-slot form factor, requires one 8-pin connector, suggests a 450 W PSU, and provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The MI350X measures 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width, while the W7700 measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The MI350X uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface; the W7700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The MI350X delivers 72.09 TFLOPS FP32, which is more than double the W7700's 31.95 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The MI350X provides 8.19 TB/s from 288 GB of HBM3e, while the W7700 provides 576.0 GB/s from 16 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Does the MI350X support display outputs?

A: No. The MI350X has no display outputs and no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan. The W7700 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 and supports all three APIs.

Q: What are the process nodes and die sizes?

A: The MI350X uses a 3 nm TSMC process on a 2380 mm² die. The W7700 uses a 5 nm TSMC process on a 346 mm² die.

Q: How does the W7700 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The W7700's average benchmark score of 118976 leads the NVIDIA GB10 by 1.3%, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 1.6%, the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 4%, and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 4.4%.

Q: What is the FP16 performance difference?

A: The MI350X achieves 72.09 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32. The W7700 achieves 63.90 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, which is lower than the MI350X's FP16 output.

The Verdict

The data describes two devices with almost no overlap in function. The MI350X is a compute accelerator with no display path, no graphics API support, a 1000 W TDP, and memory capacity and bandwidth aimed at large-scale data processing. The W7700 is a workstation graphics card with display outputs, full graphics API support, a 190 W TDP, and a compact dual-slot design.

Benchmark results only exist for the W7700, so the database cannot confirm the MI350X's real-world standing. The MI350X's 50th percentile is a placeholder for missing data. The W7700's 95th percentile is measured and validated against four close rivals.

Given the specifications, the MI350X should be selected for compute-heavy workloads requiring massive memory capacity and bandwidth, where its 288 GB HBM3e and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth are decisive. The W7700 should be selected for graphics and workstation tasks needing display output, API compatibility, and moderate power consumption. Its 16 GB GDDR6 and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth serve that role, while its 31.95 TFLOPS FP32 and 63.90 TFLOPS FP16 provide substantial compute for a 190 W card.

The release dates differ: the MI350X launched on 2025-06-11, and the W7700 on 2023-11-12. The W7700 has a recorded launch MSRP of 999 USD. No launch MSRP is recorded for the MI350X.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two products:

• Chip: MI350 256CU vs Navi 32
• Architecture: CDNA 4.0 vs RDNA 3.0
• Codename: None vs Wheat Nas
• Generation: Instinct (MIx) vs Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series)
• Process Node: 3 nm vs 5 nm
• Transistors: 185,000 million vs 28,100 million
• Die Size: 2380 mm² vs 346 mm²
• Transistor Density: 77.7M / mm² vs 81.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1000 MHz vs 1900 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2200 MHz vs 2600 MHz
• Memory Clock: 2000 MHz 8 Gbps effective vs 2250 MHz 18 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 288 GB vs 16 GB
• Memory Type: HBM3e vs GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 8192 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 8.19 TB/s vs 576.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 16384 vs 3072
• TMUs: 1024 vs 192
• ROPs: 0 vs 96
• RT Cores: None vs 48
• Pixel Rate: 0 MPixel/s vs 249.6 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 2,252.8 GTexel/s vs 499.2 GTexel/s
• FP32: 72.09 TFLOPS vs 31.95 TFLOPS
• FP16: 72.09 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 1000 W vs 190 W
• Slot Width: OAM Module vs Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None vs 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 1400 W vs 450 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 5.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display Outputs: No outputs vs 4x DisplayPort 2.1
• DirectX: N/A vs 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• OpenGL: N/A vs 4.6
• Vulkan: N/A vs 1.4
• Dimensions: 102 mm length, 165 mm width vs 241 mm length, 111 mm height
• Release Date: 2025-06-11 vs 2023-11-12
• Predecessor: Radeon Instinct vs Radeon Pro Vega
• Launch MSRP: None vs 999 USD

Where Each One Wins

The MI350X wins on raw compute scale. Its 16384 shading units and 1024 TMUs dwarf the W7700's 3072 shading units and 192 TMUs. FP32 throughput at 72.09 TFLOPS is more than double the W7700's 31.95 TFLOPS. Memory capacity at 288 GB is 18 times larger, and bandwidth at 8.19 TB/s is over 14 times higher. The 3 nm process and PCIe 5.0 interface reflect a newer, larger-scale design. The 2380 mm² die with 185,000 million transistors indicates a device built for sustained compute density, not graphics output.

The W7700 wins on graphics and workstation integration. It provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and includes 48 ray tracing cores. Its 96 ROPs and 249.6 GPixel/s pixel rate enable rasterization, which the MI350X cannot perform. The W7700's 190 W TDP and dual-slot design fit conventional workstation chassis, while the MI350X's 1000 W TDP and OAM Module form factor require specialized infrastructure. The W7700 also has measured benchmark results in the database, with a 95th percentile standing and a 118976 average score, placing it ahead of four NVIDIA rivals by margins from 1.3% to 4.4%.

The MI350X has no benchmark scores, so its percentile of 50 is not evidence of performance. The data supports a functional split: the MI350X for memory-bound and throughput-bound compute, the W7700 for graphics, ray tracing, and display-connected workflows. The FP16 figures show the MI350X at 72.09 TFLOPS versus the W7700's 63.90 TFLOPS, a narrower gap than FP32 but still a clear advantage for the MI350X. The W7700's higher boost clock of 2600 MHz versus 2200 MHz does not compensate for the shader count disparity in peak throughput terms.