AMD Instinct MI355X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7900 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Instinct MI355X and the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 in the database. The head-to-head benchmark field is empty, and neither card has a benchmark score recorded that would allow a direct performance comparison. The Instinct MI355X carries an average benchmark score of 0 and sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon PRO W7900 holds an average benchmark score of 110,725 and ranks at the 94th percentile.

The Radeon PRO W7900 has two recorded benchmark results. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 84,379, and in Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 137,070. These results place it ahead of several nearby competitors. The Radeon PRO W7900 outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II by 1% (average score 109,617), the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X by 3.2% (average score 107,342), and trails the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 2.8% (average score 113,944) and the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 3.2% (average score 114,395).

For the Instinct MI355X, no benchmark entries exist in the database. Its average benchmark score of 0 and 50th percentile ranking reflect the absence of recorded test data rather than measured performance. The nearest rivals list for the MI355X is empty, meaning the database provides no comparative measurements against other accelerators. The available technical specifications, however, indicate a compute-oriented design with a substantially higher thermal envelope and memory capacity than the Radeon PRO W7900.

Architecture Differences

The two cards use fundamentally different AMD architectures. The Instinct MI355X is built on CDNA 4.0, while the Radeon PRO W7900 uses RDNA 3.0. The MI355X chip is designated MI350 256CU, whereas the W7900 uses Navi 31 with the codename Plum Bonito. The MI355X comes from the Instinct (MIx) generation, and the W7900 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation.

The manufacturing process differs as well. The MI355X uses a 3 nm node from TSMC, and the W7900 uses a 5 nm node from the same foundry. Transistor counts diverge sharply: the MI355X packs 185,000 million transistors on a 2,380 mm² die, while the W7900 contains 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. Transistor density is higher on the W7900 at 109.1 million per mm² versus 77.7 million per mm² on the MI355X, reflecting the different design priorities of each architecture.

Memory architecture is another major split. The MI355X uses 288 GB of HBM3e on an 8,192-bit bus, delivering 8.19 TB/s of bandwidth. The W7900 uses 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, providing 864.0 GB/s. The MI355X has 16,384 shading units and 1,024 texture mapping units, with no ROPs listed. The W7900 has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The W7900 also features 96 ray tracing cores; the MI355X lists no ray tracing core count.

Clock behavior differs by design intent. The MI355X has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with memory running at 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The W7900 boosts higher at 2495 MHz with a 1760 MHz base and memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). Compute throughput favors the MI355X in raw numbers: FP32 output is 78.64 TFLOPS and FP16 is 78.64 TFLOPS (1:1) on the MI355X, versus 61.32 TFLOPS for both FP32 and FP16 on the W7900. Texture rate on the MI355X reaches 2,457.6 GTexel/s, while the W7900 reaches 958.1 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s on the MI355X and 479.0 GPixel/s on the W7900.

Power and physical design differ completely. The MI355X has a TDP of 1400 W, uses an OAM module slot width, requires no power connectors, and recommends an 1800 W PSU. The W7900 has a 295 W TDP, uses a triple-slot design, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and recommends a 600 W PSU. The MI355X uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the W7900 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The MI355X has no display outputs, while the W7900 provides three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1. API support also differs: the MI355X lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, whereas the W7900 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI355X measures 102 mm in length and 165 mm in width; the W7900 measures 280 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 51 mm in width.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The Radeon PRO W7900 has an average benchmark score of 110,725, while the Instinct MI355X has no recorded benchmark score and sits at 0.

Q: How much memory does each card offer?

A: The Instinct MI355X offers 288 GB of HBM3e, and the Radeon PRO W7900 offers 48 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Instinct MI355X delivers 78.64 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 61.32 TFLOPS on the Radeon PRO W7900.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Instinct MI355X has a 1400 W TDP and recommends an 1800 W PSU, while the Radeon PRO W7900 has a 295 W TDP and recommends a 600 W PSU.

Q: Does the Instinct MI355X support display outputs?

A: No, the Instinct MI355X has no display outputs. The Radeon PRO W7900 has three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The Radeon PRO W7900 includes 96 ray tracing cores. The Instinct MI355X lists no ray tracing core count in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to two different products for two different workloads. The Instinct MI355X is a compute accelerator with a 1400 W TDP, 288 GB of HBM3e, 78.64 TFLOPS FP32, and no display outputs. It uses CDNA 4.0, a 3 nm process, and PCIe 5.0, and it has no recorded benchmark scores. The Radeon PRO W7900 is a workstation card with a 295 W TDP, 48 GB of GDDR6, 61.32 TFLOPS FP32, 96 ray tracing cores, and display outputs. It uses RDNA 3.0, a 5 nm process, and PCIe 4.0, and it ranks at the 94th percentile with an average benchmark score of 110,725.

Based strictly on the recorded data, the W7900 has measurable performance results and sits well above the MI355X in percentile ranking. However, the MI355X holds a decisive advantage in memory capacity, memory bandwidth, transistor count, die size, and raw FP32 throughput. The absence of benchmark data for the MI355X means the database cannot confirm whether its architectural advantages translate into higher application performance. The W7900, by contrast, has demonstrated results in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, with scores of 84,379 and 137,070 respectively.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification. The process node is 3 nm for the MI355X and 5 nm for the W7900. Transistors stand at 185,000 million versus 57,700 million, and die size at 2,380 mm² versus 529 mm². Transistor density is 77.7M per mm² on the MI355X and 109.1M per mm² on the W7900. Base clocks are 1000 MHz versus 1760 MHz, boost clocks are 2400 MHz versus 2495 MHz, and memory clocks are 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 288 GB versus 48 GB, memory type is HBM3e versus GDDR6, bus width is 8,192 bit versus 384 bit, and bandwidth is 8.19 TB/s versus 864.0 GB/s.

Shading units number 16,384 versus 6,144, TMUs number 1,024 versus 384, and ROPs are 0 versus 192. Ray tracing cores are absent on the MI355X and present at 96 on the W7900. Pixel rate is 0 MPixel/s versus 479.0 GPixel/s, texture rate is 2,457.6 GTexel/s versus 958.1 GTexel/s, FP32 is 78.64 TFLOPS versus 61.32 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 78.64 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 61.32 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP is 1400 W versus 295 W. Slot width is OAM Module versus triple-slot. Power connectors are none versus 2x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 1800 W versus 600 W. Bus interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are none versus 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. API support is N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan versus 12 Ultimate (12_2), 4.6, and 1.4. Dimensions are 102 mm by 165 mm versus 280 mm by 110 mm by 51 mm. Release dates are 2025-06-11 for the MI355X and 2023-05-25 for the W7900. The W7900 has a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The Instinct MI355X wins on raw compute specifications. It offers higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, more shading units, more TMUs, larger memory capacity, wider memory bus, and dramatically higher memory bandwidth. Its 8.19 TB/s bandwidth and 288 GB capacity suit large-scale data processing, and its 1,400 W power envelope indicates a design intended for sustained, high-intensity compute workloads. The lack of display outputs and API support for graphics standards reinforces its role as a server or data center accelerator.

The Radeon PRO W7900 wins on measured benchmark performance and workstation features. Its average benchmark score of 110,725 places it at the 94th percentile, and it outperforms several nearby rivals in the database, including the Radeon Pro Vega II by 1% and the Radeon Pro W6600X by 3.2%. It carries 192 ROPs, 96 ray tracing cores, four display outputs, full DirectX 12 Ultimate support, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 295 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU make it far less demanding in system integration. The W7900 also brings a higher boost clock at 2495 MHz and a higher transistor density at 109.1M per mm².

For users selecting between the two, the data supports a clear split: the MI355X for compute-heavy tasks where memory capacity and throughput are paramount, and the W7900 for graphics work, ray tracing, display output, and applications where verified benchmark performance matters.