AMD Instinct MI355X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI355X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and neither lists any nearest rivals. The wins counter for each part sits at zero. This absence of recorded measurements is itself informative: the two cards occupy entirely separate segments of the hardware landscape, and no standardized test in the database has yet placed them on the same workload.

What can be extracted from the recorded data are the theoretical peak figures. The Instinct MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is exactly ten times the 7.885 TFLOPS of the Radeon PRO W7400. The texture rate tells a similar story: 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, a factor of roughly 20. The pixel rate flips the comparison, because the Instinct MI355X reports 0 MPixel/s while the Radeon PRO W7400 achieves 70.40 GPixel/s. The MI355X has no raster output pipeline in the traditional sense, so it produces no pixel throughput at all.

Memory bandwidth amplifies the gap further. The MI355X accesses 8.19 TB/s of HBM3e bandwidth across an 8192-bit interface. The W7400 manages 172.8 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR6 bus. That is a 47.4 times difference in raw memory throughput. Capacity also diverges sharply: 288 GB versus 8 GB, a 36 times gap.

The percentile ranking against all GPUs is identical for both. Each sits at the 50th percentile, which reflects the absence of benchmark data rather than parity in performance. In the database, both are currently unmeasured placeholders awaiting actual workload results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute?

A: The AMD Instinct MI355X records 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32, exactly ten times the 7.885 TFLOPS of the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. FP16 rates are identical to their FP32 figures for both cards, at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The MI355X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s. The W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s. Both figures come directly from the recorded specifications.

Q: Do both cards support standard graphics APIs?

A: No. The Radeon PRO W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Instinct MI355X reports N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and it has no display outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements of each card?

A: The MI355X is rated at 1400 W TDP with a suggested power supply of 1800 W. The W7400 is rated at 55 W TDP with a suggested power supply of 250 W. Neither card uses external power connectors.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 records 70.40 GPixel/s, while the Instinct MI355X records 0 MPixel/s. The MI355X is not designed for rasterized graphics output.

Q: What are the physical form factors?

A: The MI355X is an OAM Module measuring 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width. The W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families despite sharing a manufacturer. The Instinct MI355X uses CDNA 4.0, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon PRO W7400 uses RDNA 3.0, built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The codename for the W7400 is Hotpink Bonefish, while the MI355X lists no codename. The MI355X belongs to the Instinct (MIx) generation, and the W7400 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation.

Transistor counts reveal the scale difference. The MI355X integrates 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, yielding a density of 77.7M transistors per mm². The W7400 integrates 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding 65.2M per mm². The MI355X die is more than eleven times larger in area and packs nearly fourteen times more transistors. The denser packing on the MI355X indicates a more advanced process node doing more work per square millimeter.

The compute configuration diverges completely. The MI355X uses the MI350 256CU chip with 16,384 shading units and 1,024 texture mapping units. It has no raster operation units, no ray tracing cores, and no dedicated tensor cores listed. The W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The MI355X has no display outputs, while the W7400 provides four DisplayPort 2.1 connections.

Clock behavior differs as well. The MI355X runs at a 1000 MHz base clock and boosts to 2400 MHz. The W7400 runs at 330 MHz base and boosts to 1100 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the MI355X uses 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective speed, while the W7400 uses 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective. The MI355X achieves its massive bandwidth through the 8192-bit HBM3e interface rather than through high memory clock speed.

The bus interface separates the two further. The MI355X connects over PCIe 5.0 x16, while the W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI355X is an OAM Module with no power connectors and a 1400 W TDP, and it requires an 1800 W suggested power supply. The W7400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 55 W TDP, requiring a 250 W suggested power supply.

The Verdict

The recorded data draws a clear functional boundary. The Instinct MI355X is an accelerator without graphics output. It has no display connectors, no graphics API support, no pixel rate, and no ROPs. Its strengths lie entirely in compute throughput and memory capacity. The 78.64 TFLOPS FP32 figure, the 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, and the 288 GB capacity all point toward large-scale data processing workloads. The 1400 W TDP and OAM Module form factor reinforce that positioning.

The Radeon PRO W7400 is a conventional workstation graphics card. It has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, full DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 support, and a 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate. Its 8 GB GDDR6 memory and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth serve display-driven workflows. The 55 W TDP and single-slot design make it suitable for compact systems. The 28 ray tracing cores add hardware acceleration for ray-traced rendering.

No benchmark data exists to rank them on actual workloads. The theoretical specifications suggest the MI355X dominates in raw compute and memory-bound tasks, while the W7400 covers every graphics function the MI355X lacks. The 50th percentile ranking for both cards reflects missing measurements, not comparative performance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI355X | AMD Radeon PRO W7400 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 4.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 6 nm |

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

| Die Size | 2380 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 330 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz | 1100 MHz |

| Memory Size | 288 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 8192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 8.19 TB/s | 172.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 16384 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 1024 | 112 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None listed | 28 |

| Pixel Rate | 0 MPixel/s | 70.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 2,457.6 GTexel/s | 123.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 78.64 TFLOPS | 7.885 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 78.64 TFLOPS (1:1) | 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 1400 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 1800 W | 250 W |

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

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

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

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

| Length | 102 mm 4 inches | 168 mm 6.6 inches |

| Width | 165 mm 6.5 inches | 20 mm 0.8 inches |

| Height | Not listed | 69 mm 2.7 inches |

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

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Radeon Pro Vega |

Where Each One Wins

The Instinct MI355X wins in every compute-centric specification. Its FP32 throughput of 78.64 TFLOPS is ten times the W7400 figure. Its texture rate of 2,457.6 GTexel/s is nearly twenty times higher. Memory bandwidth of 8.19 TB/s is over 47 times the W7400 bandwidth, and capacity of 288 GB is 36 times larger. The 8192-bit bus width, the 16,384 shading units, and the 1,024 TMUs all support data-parallel workloads at scale. The 3 nm process, the 185,000 million transistor count, and the 2380 mm² die size indicate a part built for maximum throughput per operation. The 1400 W TDP and 1800 W suggested power supply show the energy envelope required for that performance.

The Radeon PRO W7400 wins in every graphics-specific specification. It is the only one of the two with a pixel rate, recording 70.40 GPixel/s. It is the only one with ray tracing cores, carrying 28 of them. It is the only one with display outputs, providing four DisplayPort 2.1 connections. It is the only one with graphics API support, covering DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 64 ROPs handle rasterization work that the MI355X cannot perform at all. The 55 W TDP and 250 W suggested power supply make it deployable in systems where the MI355X would be physically and electrically impractical. The single-slot form factor and 168 mm length fit standard workstation chassis.

The bus interface also splits their use cases. The MI355X uses PCIe 5.0 x16, double the lane count and a newer generation than the W7400's PCIe 4.0 x8. The MI355X is built for server integration as an OAM Module, while the W7400 is a conventional add-in card. The release dates place the MI355X first at 2025-06-11, with the W7400 following on 2025-08-02. Both trace their lineage to different predecessors: the MI355X succeeds Radeon Instinct, while the W7400 succeeds Radeon Pro Vega. The production status of the W7400 is Active, while the MI355X lists no production status. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The data supports a clean separation. The MI355X delivers massive compute and memory resources with no graphics capability. The W7400 delivers complete graphics functionality with modest compute. Any workload involving rendering or display output belongs to the W7400. Any workload involving large-scale numerical processing belongs to the MI355X. Without recorded benchmark results, the theoretical specifications are the only measurable basis for selection.