AMD Radeon 780M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Radeon 780M and the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 presents an unusual comparison challenge. The 780M has three benchmark entries in the database, while the PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores at all. This absence of direct measurements for the professional card means the head-to-head analysis must rely on the available scores for the 780M and the architectural specifications of the PRO W7400.

The AMD Radeon 780M delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 480 points. Its Geekbench OpenCL result reaches 18602 points, while the Vulkan test produces 33683 points. These figures place the integrated graphics solution at the 61st percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 17588 points. The nearest rivals for the 780M include the AMD Radeon Pro 560 with an average score of 17551 points, which sits 0.2 percent behind, and the AMD Radeon Pro 460 with 17509 points, trailing by 0.5 percent. On the other side, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 averages 17639 points, leading the 780M by 0.3 percent, and the AMD Radeon HD 7790 averages 17666 points, ahead by 0.4 percent.

The PRO W7400 has no benchmark scores entered in the database. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero, and its percentile rank is 50. There are no nearest rivals listed for this card, which prevents any direct numerical comparison between the two AMD products. The data reveals a clear gap in available performance measurements between the two items.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 780M wins in the category of recorded, verifiable performance data. Its three benchmark scores exist and can be compared against other GPUs in the database. The 780M shows particular strength in the Vulkan test, where it reaches 33683 points, nearly double its OpenCL result. This suggests the integrated GPU handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently in the recorded measurements.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in the categories of dedicated memory and physical form factor. It carries 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The 780M relies on system shared memory with bandwidth that depends on the host system. The PRO W7400 also exists as a single-slot card with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the 780M is an IGP whose display outputs depend on the motherboard.

For compute workloads, the PRO W7400 presents a larger raw shader configuration with 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The 780M contains 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The PRO W7400 also includes 28 ray tracing cores against 12 in the 780M. These specification advantages suggest the professional card holds the advantage in raw throughput, though no benchmark data confirms this.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher recorded average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M has an average benchmark score of 17588 points. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores, giving it an average score of zero in the database.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon 780M ranks at the 61st percentile among all GPUs in the database. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 ranks at the 50th percentile with no benchmark data supporting that position.

Q: How does the 780M compare to the AMD Radeon Pro 560?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 560 averages 17551 points, which is 0.2 percent behind the 780M's average of 17588 points.

Q: How does the 780M compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 averages 17639 points, which puts it 0.3 percent ahead of the 780M's 17588 points.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The 780M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus with 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units. The AMD Radeon 780M has 768 shading units.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measured specification. The 780M uses a process node of 4 nm at TSMC, while the PRO W7400 uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The 780M contains 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, producing a transistor density of 142.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The PRO W7400 contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2 million per square millimeter.

Clock speeds show a significant divergence. The 780M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2900 MHz. The PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, with its memory clocked at 1350 MHz or 10.8 Gbps effective. The 780M's memory clock is listed as system shared.

Compute configurations differ substantially. The 780M provides 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7400 provides 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. Pixel rate favors the 780M at 92.80 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s for the PRO W7400. Texture rate also favors the 780M at 139.2 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. FP32 compute favors the 780M at 8.909 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS for the PRO W7400, with both delivering FP16 at a 1:1 ratio.

Power characteristics differ markedly. The 780M has a TDP of 15 W and no power connectors, being an IGP. The PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The PRO W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The 780M has no recorded dimensions. Display outputs differ as well: the 780M uses motherboard dependent outputs, while the PRO W7400 provides four DisplayPort 2.1 connections.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the RDNA 3.0 architecture, but they implement it on different chips and for different purposes. The 780M uses the Phoenix chip and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation. The PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The 780M lists its predecessor as Navi II IGP and successor as Navi III IGP, while the PRO W7400 lists its predecessor as Radeon Pro Vega and has no successor.

The manufacturing differences reveal distinct design priorities. The 780M achieves higher transistor density on a smaller die using a more advanced 4 nm process. The PRO W7400 uses a larger die with fewer transistors on the older 6 nm process, resulting in a lower density. Despite this, the PRO W7400 carries more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The 780M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, as does the PRO W7400. The 780M released on January 30, 2024, while the PRO W7400 released on August 2, 2025. Both remain in active production.

The architectural split shows an integrated solution optimized for low power consumption at 15 W versus a discrete professional card at 55 W. The 780M achieves higher clock speeds and pixel and texture rates despite its smaller compute configuration. The PRO W7400 compensates with a larger shader array and dedicated memory bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data supports different selections depending on the workload requirements. The AMD Radeon 780M offers the only verified benchmark results in this comparison. Its position at the 61st percentile, with an average score of 17588 points, places it in the middle of the database rankings. Its nearest rivals, the AMD Radeon Pro 560 and Pro 460, sit within 0.5 percent of its average score, indicating a tight cluster of similar performance. The 780M delivers higher pixel rates, texture rates, and FP32 compute than the PRO W7400 based on the recorded specifications, despite running at just 15 W.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 presents a case built entirely on specifications rather than measurements. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth provides a fixed memory pool that does not depend on system configuration. Its larger shader array of 1792 units and 28 ray tracing cores suggest capacity for heavy compute workloads that the 780M's 768 shading units and 12 ray tracing cores cannot match. The four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs give it a clear advantage for multi-monitor professional setups. The 55 W TDP and single-slot form factor make it a distinct physical product from the IGP 780M.

Users needing confirmed performance data should consider the 780M, as its benchmark scores and rival comparisons provide a concrete reference point. Users requiring dedicated memory, higher shader counts, and professional display outputs should consider the PRO W7400, with the caveat that the database contains no performance measurements to validate its capability. The absence of head-to-head benchmark entries means the relative performance between these two RDNA 3.0 GPUs remains unquantified in the recorded data.