AMD Radeon 890M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark records for the AMD Radeon 890M and the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. This absence of overlapping tests makes a conventional side-by-side comparison impossible. Instead, the analysis must rely on the available standalone measurements for the 890M and the architectural and specification data for both parts.

The Radeon 890M has a substantial set of recorded benchmark scores. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result is 590 points. In Geekbench, it scores 37,254 in OpenCL and 40,808 in Vulkan. The Passmark suite shows a G3D score of 8,076, a G2D score of 979, and a GPU compute score of 4,157. The legacy DirectX tests show 33 for DX10, 73 for DX11, 37 for DX12, and 97 for DX9. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 9,210. This places the 890M at the 45th percentile among all GPUs in the database.

The Radeon PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores at all. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and it holds no percentile ranking. The nearest rivals field is empty. This means the PRO W7400 cannot be positioned against the 890M or any other GPU using measured performance data. The only quantitative performance indicators available are derived from its raw specifications, such as pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput.

The 890M's nearest rivals provide context for its performance tier. The AMD Radeon Vega 8 averages 9,221, which is 0.1% higher than the 890M's average. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 averages 9,273, a 0.7% advantage. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 averages 9,294, 0.9% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M averages 9,302, 1% higher. These deltas are small, indicating the 890M sits in a tightly packed performance band. The data shows the 890M is competitive with these older discrete and integrated solutions, but it does not decisively beat any of them in average score.

The PRO W7400's specification-derived figures tell a different story. Its FP32 throughput is 7.885 TFLOPS, which is notably higher than the 890M's 5.939 TFLOPS. The PRO W7400 also has more shading units (1,792 versus 1,024), more texture mapping units (112 versus 64), and more render output units (64 versus 32). However, its pixel rate is lower at 70.40 GPixel/s compared to 92.80 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is lower at 123.2 GTexel/s versus 185.6 GTexel/s. These contradictory indicators suggest the two GPUs are optimized differently, with the 890M emphasizing fill-rate-heavy workloads and the PRO W7400 favoring compute-heavy tasks.

Without head-to-head tests, the recorded data cannot confirm which GPU wins in any specific application. The wins counters for both parts are zero. The analysis must therefore treat the PRO W7400 as an unmeasured entity whose expected behavior is inferred from its architecture and clock specifications.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but conditional verdict. The Radeon 890M has verified performance across multiple benchmark suites, placing it at the 45th percentile of all GPUs. Its average score of 9,210 is within 1% of several older discrete GPUs, including the GTX 960 and GTX 465. This makes it a known quantity for general graphics workloads.

The Radeon PRO W7400 has no measured performance data. It cannot be recommended on the basis of benchmark results because none exist in the database. Its FP32 throughput of 7.885 TFLOPS is 32.8% higher than the 890M's 5.939 TFLOPS, but this advantage is purely theoretical until confirmed by tests.

For users who require verified performance, the 890M is the only option with recorded evidence. For users who prioritize raw compute specifications and can accept unverified claims, the PRO W7400 offers a higher FP32 ceiling, 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 memory, and a 172.8 GB/s memory bandwidth. The 890M relies on system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, which introduces variability that dedicated memory avoids.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: the 890M is the measured performer, while the PRO W7400 is the specification-based unknown. Neither part can be declared a winner in a head-to-head sense because no such test exists.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use different generations of AMD's RDNA architecture. The Radeon 890M is built on RDNA 3.5 and uses the Strix Point chip. The Radeon PRO W7400 uses RDNA 3.0 and is built on the Navi 33 chip, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The 890M is part of the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation, while the PRO W7400 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation.

The manufacturing process differs. The 890M uses a 4 nm node at TSMC, while the PRO W7400 uses a 6 nm node, also at TSMC. The 890M has 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 145.9M per mm². The PRO W7400 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a density of 65.2M per mm². The 890M's smaller process node and higher transistor density indicate a more compact and densely packed design.

Cache and compute resources differ substantially. The 890M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7400 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7400 has roughly 75% more shading units, 75% more TMUs, double the ROPs, and 75% more ray tracing cores. This suggests the PRO W7400 is designed for heavier parallel workloads. Neither part has tensor cores listed.

The clock behavior is also distinct. The 890M has a base clock of 400 MHz and a boost clock of 2,900 MHz. The PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1,100 MHz. Despite the PRO W7400's higher core count, its much lower boost clock limits its peak throughput. The 890M's boost clock is 163.6% higher, which explains why its pixel and texture rates exceed those of the PRO W7400 despite having fewer fixed-function units.

Both parts support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The 890M is a 4 nm integrated part with a 15 W TDP, while the PRO W7400 is a 6 nm discrete part with a 55 W TDP. The PRO W7400 is single-slot with dimensions of 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The 890M is an IGP with no slot width, power connectors, or dimensions listed.

Specification Differences

The most direct specification differences between the two parts are in memory, clocks, and physical design.

The 890M uses system-shared memory of a type and bus width that are also system-shared, with bandwidth listed as system dependent. The PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1,350 MHz, or 10.8 Gbps effective. This is a fundamental difference: the 890M's memory performance depends entirely on the host system, while the PRO W7400 has fixed, dedicated memory resources.

The 890M's boost clock is 2,900 MHz versus 1,100 MHz for the PRO W7400. The 890M's base clock is 400 MHz versus 330 MHz. The 890M has a pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 185.6 GTexel/s. The PRO W7400 has a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s. The 890M leads in both fill-rate metrics.

FP32 performance favors the PRO W7400. The 890M delivers 5.939 TFLOPS, while the PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS. Both parts list FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning the 890M's FP16 is 5.939 TFLOPS and the PRO W7400's is 7.885 TFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics differ sharply. The 890M has a 15 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The PRO W7400 has a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The 890M is an IGP with display outputs described as portable device dependent. The PRO W7400 has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

The release dates differ. The 890M was released on 2024-07-14, while the PRO W7400 was released on 2025-08-02. The 890M's predecessor is listed as Navi II IGP, while the PRO W7400's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega. Both are listed as Active in production status. Neither has a launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 1,792 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 890M has 1,024.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: The Radeon 890M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How do their FP32 performance figures compare?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS, which is 32.8% higher than the Radeon 890M's 5.939 TFLOPS.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Radeon 890M has a boost clock of 2,900 MHz. The Radeon PRO W7400 has a boost clock of 1,100 MHz.

Q: Are there any benchmark results for the Radeon PRO W7400?

A: No. The database contains no benchmark scores for the PRO W7400, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The Radeon 890M uses a 4 nm TSMC process. The Radeon PRO W7400 uses a 6 nm TSMC process.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 890M wins in scenarios where fill rate matters. Its pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s is 31.8% higher than the PRO W7400's 70.40 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 185.6 GTexel/s is 50.6% higher than the PRO W7400's 123.2 GTexel/s. These advantages come from its much higher boost clock of 2,900 MHz. Applications that are heavily dependent on texture filtering or pixel output would theoretically favor the 890M.

The 890M also wins on power efficiency in terms of TDP. It consumes 15 W versus 55 W for the PRO W7400. For integrated mobile systems where power is limited, the 890M is the only viable option, as it is an IGP with no power connectors and no slot width.

The Radeon PRO W7400 wins in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 score of 7.885 TFLOPS is higher than the 890M's 5.939 TFLOPS. It also has more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores. Workloads that scale with shader count, such as compute-heavy rendering or ray tracing, would favor the PRO W7400 based on its architecture.

The PRO W7400 wins on memory determinism. Its 8 GB of dedicated GDDR6 with 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth is fixed and predictable. The 890M's memory bandwidth is system dependent, meaning its performance varies with the host system's memory configuration. For tasks requiring consistent memory performance, the PRO W7400 has the advantage.

The PRO W7400 also wins on display connectivity. It offers four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the 890M's display outputs are dependent on the portable device it is integrated into.

The 890M wins on process technology. Its 4 nm node is smaller than the PRO W7400's 6 nm node, and its transistor density of 145.9M per mm² is more than double the PRO W7400's 65.2M per mm². This indicates a more advanced manufacturing process, though the practical impact is already reflected in the clock speeds and fill rates.

The 890M wins on verified performance. Its average benchmark score of 9,210 and 45th percentile ranking are recorded data. The PRO W7400 has no recorded scores, so any claim about its real-world performance remains unverified. For users who trust measured results over specifications, the 890M is the only part with evidence in the database.