AMD Instinct MI355X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Instinct MI355X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 occupy entirely different positions in the database. The MI355X is an accelerator with no benchmark entries, a percentile rank of 50, and an average benchmark score of 0. The W7600, by contrast, has two recorded benchmark scores, an average score of 87108, and sits at the 93rd percentile of all GPUs. The use-case split is therefore defined by what each card is designed to do rather than by direct performance comparisons.

The MI355X wins in the domain of massive parallel compute and memory capacity. It carries 288 GB of HBM3e memory across an 8192 bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. This is an order of magnitude beyond what any workstation card offers, and the data indicates it is built for workloads that require enormous memory residency, such as large model inference or scientific simulation. The W7600, with 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, wins in the domain of conventional graphics workstations. Its 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 make it a functional display adapter, whereas the MI355X has no display outputs and no API support at all.

The W7600 also wins on the basis of measured performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 81528 and Vulkan score of 92688 are the only benchmark data points in this comparison. The MI355X has zero recorded benchmarks, which means the database treats it as untested. The percentile gap is stark: 93 versus 50. For any workload that can be measured by existing benchmarks, the W7600 is the only one with evidence of capability.

The MI355X wins on raw throughput figures from the specification sheet. Its FP32 rate of 78.64 TFLOPS is nearly four times the W7600's 19.99 TFLOPS. Its texture rate of 2,457.6 GTexel/s is almost eight times the W7600's 312.3 GTexel/s. The MI355X also uses a 3 nm process with 185,000 million transistors on a 2380 mm² die, versus the W7600's 6 nm process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. These are not comparable products, and the data reflects that they serve different markets entirely.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two AMD products is fundamental. The MI355X uses the CDNA 4.0 architecture, built on the MI350 chip with 256 compute units. The W7600 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on the Navi 33 chip. CDNA is AMD's compute-optimized architecture, and RDNA is their graphics-optimized architecture. The codename for the W7600 is "Hotpink Bonefish," while the MI355X has no codename listed.

The process nodes differ significantly. The MI355X is fabricated on a 3 nm process at TSMC, while the W7600 uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. Transistor counts reflect the scale difference: the MI355X has 185,000 million transistors, the W7600 has 13,300 million. Die size tells the same story: 2380 mm² versus 204 mm². Transistor density is actually higher on the MI355X at 77.7M per mm², compared to 65.2M per mm² for the W7600, which indicates the newer process node is denser as well as larger.

Memory architecture is entirely different. The MI355X uses HBM3e memory with a 8192 bit bus width and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The W7600 uses GDDR6 with a 128 bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI355X's memory clock is listed as 2000 MHz with 8 Gbps effective, while the W7600 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The effective data rate per pin is higher on the W7600, but the massive bus width on the MI355X makes its total bandwidth dominant.

Compute unit organization also differs. The MI355X has 16,384 shading units, 1,024 texture mapping units, and 0 ROPs. The W7600 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI355X has no ROPs because it is not designed for rasterization. The W7600 includes 32 ray tracing cores, while the MI355X lists no ray tracing cores at all. Neither card lists tensor cores. The MI355X's FP16 rate is 78.64 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, whereas the W7600's FP16 rate is 39.98 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the W7600 doubles its FP32 throughput when using FP16 instructions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the MI355X and the W7600. The "headToHeadBenchmarks" field is empty, and the win counts are zero for both sides. The only measurable performance data available is the W7600's two Geekbench scores and its nearest rival comparisons.

The W7600's Geekbench OpenCL score of 81528 and Vulkan score of 92688 produce an average of 87108. Against its nearest rivals, the W7600 sits within a narrow band. The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 scores 87445, which is 0.4 percent higher than the W7600. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX scores 85637, which is 1.7 percent lower. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile scores 91134, putting it 4.4 percent ahead of the W7600. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 scores 91671, which is 5 percent ahead. This places the W7600 in a competitive position among workstation and professional cards, slightly behind the RTX A4500 class but ahead of the CMP 40HX.

The MI355X has no benchmark scores to interpret. Its percentile rank of 50 and average score of 0 indicate that the database has no measurement data for this accelerator. The specification sheet suggests extreme compute capability, but there is no recorded evidence of it in benchmark form. The W7600's measured scores, by contrast, show a functional graphics card that performs competitively within its peer group.

The FP32 throughput comparison is the clearest mathematical head-to-head available. The MI355X's 78.64 TFLOPS is 3.93 times the W7600's 19.99 TFLOPS. The texture rate comparison shows the MI355X at 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s for the W7600, a ratio of 7.87. The pixel rate comparison is one-sided: the MI355X produces 0 MPixel/s due to having no ROPs, while the W7600 produces 156.2 GPixel/s. These numbers confirm that the MI355X is a compute accelerator without graphics output, while the W7600 is a rasterization-capable GPU.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has an average benchmark score of 87108, based on a Geekbench OpenCL score of 81528 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 92688. The AMD Instinct MI355X has no recorded benchmark scores, resulting in an average score of 0.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The W7600 ranks at the 93rd percentile of all GPUs. The MI355X ranks at the 50th percentile, which reflects the absence of any benchmark data rather than measured performance.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what type?

A: The MI355X has 288 GB of HBM3e memory with an 8192 bit bus and 8.19 TB/s bandwidth. The W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128 bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Can either card be used for display output?

A: Only the W7600 has display outputs, specifically 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The MI355X has no display outputs and lists no API support for DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan.

Q: How does the W7600 compare to the NVIDIA RTX A4500 in benchmark scores?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 has an average score of 91671, which is 5 percent higher than the W7600's average score of 87108. The RTX A4500 Mobile scores 91134, which is 4.4 percent higher than the W7600.

Q: What is the FP32 compute throughput for each card?

A: The MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The MI355X's FP16 rate matches its FP32 rate at 78.64 TFLOPS, while the W7600's FP16 rate is 39.98 TFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field in the database.

| Specification | AMD Instinct MI355X | AMD Radeon PRO W7600 |

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

| Architecture | CDNA 4.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Chip | MI350 256CU | Navi 33 |

| Codename | None listed | Hotpink Bonefish |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 6 nm |

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

| Die Size | 2380 mm² | 204 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1720 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz | 2440 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz, 8 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 288 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM3e | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 8192 bit | 128 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 16384 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 1024 | 128 |

| ROPs | 0 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None listed | 32 |

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

| Texture Rate | 2,457.6 GTexel/s | 312.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 78.64 TFLOPS | 19.99 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 78.64 TFLOPS (1:1) | 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 1400 W | 130 W |

| Slot Width | OAM Module | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | 1800 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 |

| Length | 102 mm (4 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Width | 165 mm (6.5 inches) | Not listed |

| Height | Not listed | 115 mm (4.5 inches) |

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

| Predecessor | Radeon Instinct | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 599 USD |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of purpose. The AMD Instinct MI355X is a compute accelerator with extreme specifications: 288 GB of HBM3e memory, 8.19 TB/s bandwidth, 78.64 TFLOPS of FP32, and a 1400 W TDP. It has no display outputs, no graphics API support, and no benchmark scores in the database. Its 50th percentile rank and zero average score mean that every claim about its performance must come from the specification sheet alone. The 3 nm process, 185,000 million transistors, and 2380 mm² die indicate a part built for datacenter-scale compute, not desktop or workstation graphics.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is a measured, functioning workstation GPU. Its average benchmark score of 87108 places it at the 93rd percentile, with nearest rivals within a 5 percent band. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 leads the W7600 by 5 percent, the Quadro GP100 is essentially tied at 0.4 percent higher, the CMP 40HX trails by 1.7 percent, and the RTX A4500 Mobile leads by 4.4 percent. The W7600 provides display outputs, ray tracing cores, full API support, and a 130 W TDP that requires only a 300 W suggested PSU. Its 6 nm process and 204 mm² die are modest by comparison, but its benchmark evidence is concrete.

The choice between these two cards depends entirely on workload. For tasks that require massive memory capacity, extreme bandwidth, and high FP32 throughput without any need for display output, the MI355X is the only option with the necessary specifications. For tasks that require measured graphics performance, display connectivity, and API compatibility, the W7600 is the only option with any benchmark data to support it. The launch MSRP of 599 USD for the W7600 provides a reference point for its market position, while the MI355X has no listed launch price. The 1400 W TDP and 1800 W suggested PSU for the MI355X indicate a datacenter power envelope, whereas the W7600's 130 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU fit a standard workstation. The database records no overlap in their measured capabilities, and the verdict follows from that fact: choose the MI355X for unmeasured, specification-driven compute scale, and choose the W7600 for verified, benchmark-supported graphics work.