AMD Radeon 880M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

AMD Radeon 880M and AMD Radeon PRO W7400 occupy different corners of AMD’s graphics lineup, and the recorded data shows they have almost no overlap in intended use. The 880M is an integrated GPU built into the Strix Point mobile chip, while the PRO W7400 is a discrete workstation card based on Navi 33. Benchmark results indicate the 880M has a complete set of scores, while the PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmark entries in the database. This asymmetry shapes the entire comparison: the 880M can be measured directly against other GPUs, while the PRO W7400 must be assessed through its architectural specifications and raw compute capabilities.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear split: the 880M wins in integration and efficiency, the PRO W7400 wins in raw throughput and dedicated resources. The 880M delivers a full benchmark suite, with an average benchmark score of 8436 and a percentile rank of 43 across all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675MX (avg score 8427, delta 0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (avg score 8458, delta -0.3%), and the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (avg score 8462, delta -0.3%). These results place the 880M squarely in the range of older discrete mobile GPUs, confirming it as a capable integrated solution for portable devices.

The PRO W7400, by contrast, has no recorded benchmarks, no average score, and no nearest rivals. Its win is structural: it brings 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the 880M relies on System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. In any memory-bound workload, the PRO W7400’s dedicated VRAM provides a fundamental advantage that the 880M cannot match, regardless of the 880M’s higher boost clock.

The 880M wins in power efficiency. Its TDP is 15 W, versus 55 W for the PRO W7400. The 880M is an IGP with no power connectors, while the PRO W7400 is a single-slot card that also requires no power connectors but carries a suggested PSU of 250 W. For systems where power draw is constrained, the 880M is the clear choice.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use different generations of RDNA. The 880M is built on RDNA 3.5, the PRO W7400 on RDNA 3.0. This generation gap shows up in the process node: the 880M uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the PRO W7400 uses a 6 nm process, also from TSMC. The 880M’s chip, Strix Point, packs 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 145.9M per mm². The PRO W7400’s Navi 33 chip contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2M per mm². The 880M has more than double the transistor count in a slightly larger die, reflecting the density advantage of the newer node.

The compute configurations differ substantially. The 880M has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7400 more than doubles the shading units and ray tracing cores, and quadruples the ROP count. These raw resource differences drive the FP32 performance: the 880M delivers 4.454 TFLOPS, while the PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS, a 77% higher figure. Both have FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The 880M has a base clock of 400 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. The 880M’s boost clock is more than 2.6 times higher, but its lower resource count means the pixel rate is 46.40 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s for the PRO W7400. The texture rate is closer: 139.2 GTexel/s for the 880M versus 123.2 GTexel/s for the PRO W7400. Here the 880M’s higher clocks partially compensate for fewer TMUs.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The bus interfaces are identical: PCIe 4.0 x8. The PRO W7400 has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the 880M’s display outputs are described as Portable Device Dependent, reflecting its integrated nature.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, while the 880M delivers 4.454 TFLOPS. The PRO W7400 also has 1792 shading units versus 768 for the 880M.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The 880M uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The 880M has a TDP of 15 W. The PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and includes a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which GPU has better benchmark scores?

A: Only the 880M has recorded benchmarks. Its average benchmark score is 8436 with a percentile rank of 43. The PRO W7400 has no benchmark entries in the database.

Q: Are they on the same architecture?

A: No. The 880M uses RDNA 3.5 on a 4 nm process. The PRO W7400 uses RDNA 3.0 on a 6 nm process.

Q: Which GPU is larger or more complex?

A: The 880M’s Strix Point chip has 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die. The PRO W7400’s Navi 33 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. Process node: 4 nm for the 880M, 6 nm for the PRO W7400. Transistors: 34,000 million versus 13,300 million. Die size: 233 mm² versus 204 mm². Transistor density: 145.9M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm².

Clock speeds: base 400 MHz versus 330 MHz, boost 2900 MHz versus 1100 MHz. Memory: System Shared versus 8 GB GDDR6. Memory bus: System Shared versus 128 bit. Bandwidth: System Dependent versus 172.8 GB/s. Shading units: 768 versus 1792. TMUs: 48 versus 112. ROPs: 16 versus 64. Ray tracing cores: 12 versus 28.

Pixel rate: 46.40 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 139.2 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. FP32: 4.454 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS. FP16: 4.454 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS. TDP: 15 W versus 55 W. Slot width: IGP versus Single-slot. Power connectors: None for both. Suggested PSU: none listed for the 880M, 250 W for the PRO W7400.

Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1. Dimensions: none listed for the 880M, while the PRO W7400 measures 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width. Release dates: 2024-07-14 for the 880M, 2025-08-02 for the PRO W7400. Production status: both Active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. This absence of direct comparison data means any performance assessment must rely on the 880M’s standalone benchmarks and the PRO W7400’s specification-based capabilities.

The 880M’s recorded scores show its positioning. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 535. Geekbench OpenCL gives 31285, and Geekbench Vulkan gives 40006. Passmark scores range from 31 in DirectX 10, 73 in DirectX 11, 32 in DirectX 12, and 97 in DirectX 9. The 2D score is 969, the 3D score is 7615, and the GPU compute score is 3719. Its average benchmark score of 8436 places it at the 43rd percentile of all GPUs, with nearest rivals within a 1.3% delta range: the GTX 675MX is +0.1%, the MX330 is -0.3%, the HD 8870M is -0.3%, and the R9 M375X is +1.3%.

These figures indicate the 880M performs at the level of older discrete mobile GPUs. The PRO W7400, with no benchmark data, cannot be compared directly. However, its specification sheet shows it has 2.35 times the shading units, 4 times the ROPs, 7 times the dedicated memory capacity, and 1.77 times the FP32 throughput of the 880M. The 880M’s higher boost clock (2900 MHz versus 1100 MHz) and higher texture rate (139.2 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s) are the only areas where it leads in raw numbers.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two different products for two different use cases. The 880M is an integrated GPU with a complete set of benchmark results, an average score of 8436, and a 43rd percentile ranking. It competes with discrete mobile GPUs from several generations ago, as shown by its nearest rivals. Its 15 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for thin, power-constrained portable devices. Its high boost clock of 2900 MHz and transistor density of 145.9M per mm² indicate an efficient design, but its 768 shading units and 16 ROPs cap its performance ceiling.

The PRO W7400 is a discrete workstation card with no benchmark scores in the database. Its specifications show a much larger compute footprint: 1792 shading units, 64 ROPs, 28 ray tracing cores, and 7.885 TFLOPS FP32. The 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth provides dedicated resources that the 880M lacks. Its 55 W TDP and single-slot form factor with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs align with professional workstation usage.

For users who need an integrated graphics solution with verified performance data, the 880M is the measured option. For workloads requiring dedicated memory and higher raw compute, the PRO W7400’s specifications indicate superior capability, though its performance remains unverified in the database. The choice depends on whether the application prioritizes integrated efficiency with known benchmark results, or dedicated workstation hardware with higher theoretical throughput.