AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs AMD Radeon Pro W5700X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 scores 68,562 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 43,810 points. That is a 56.5% advantage for the Instinct MI25, a massive margin that places the two cards in completely different performance tiers despite both carrying AMD branding.

The Instinct MI25 sits at the 90th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its closest rivals include the Intel Arc A770 at 68,809 points, which trails by only 0.4%, and the NVIDIA CMP 90HX at 69,000 points, which is 0.6% ahead. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 scores 69,870 points, 1.9% higher, and the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 reaches 69,986 points, 2% higher. These are tight margins, meaning the Instinct MI25 is effectively trading blows with a cluster of high-end workstation and compute cards. The W5700X, by contrast, sits at the 87th percentile, and its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 54,828, which is far below the MI25's single-test average of 68,562.

The W5700X does have additional benchmark data in other APIs, but none of those tests were run on the MI25, so no direct comparison is possible. In Geekbench Metal, the W5700X scores 75,427, and in Geekbench Vulkan it scores 45,246. These numbers are not comparable to the MI25 because the database has no Metal or Vulkan results for that card. For OpenCL, however, the verdict is unambiguous: the MI25 leads by a wide margin.

The W5700X's nearest rivals in the database are interesting for context. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 averages 54,247 points, which is 1.1% below the W5700X's average. The RTX 4080 SUPER averages 54,209, also 1.1% lower. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB averages 55,698 points, 1.6% higher, and the AMD Radeon 8060S averages 55,757 points, 1.7% higher. This places the W5700X in a mid-range to upper-mid-range bracket, well behind the MI25's neighborhood.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and different foundries. The Instinct MI25 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors into a 495 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The W5700X uses the Navi 10 chip on RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 7 nm process. It contains 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 41.0 million per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ substantially. The MI25 has 4,096 shading units, 256 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. The W5700X has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and also 64 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the W5700X reaches a higher boost clock of 2,040 MHz compared to the MI25's 1,500 MHz boost. The base clocks are closer: 1,243 MHz for the W5700X versus 1,400 MHz for the MI25.

Memory architecture is another major split. The MI25 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2,048-bit bus, delivering 436.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The W5700X also has 16 GB, but it is GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with slightly higher bandwidth at 448.0 GB/s. The memory clocks tell the story: the MI25 runs at 852 MHz with 1,704 Mbps effective, while the W5700X runs at 1,750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective. The W5700X achieves higher bandwidth with a narrower bus, while the MI25 relies on its very wide HBM2 interface.

Compute throughput favors the MI25 in raw numbers. The MI25 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The W5700X delivers 10.44 TFLOPS FP32 and 20.89 TFLOPS FP16, also at 2:1. Pixel fill rates reverse the trend: the W5700X reaches 130.6 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s for the MI25. Texture fill rates are closer, with the MI25 at 384.0 GTexel/s and the W5700X at 326.4 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design differ sharply. The MI25 has a 300 W TDP, a dual-slot cooler, two 8-pin power connectors, and a suggested 700 W power supply. The W5700X has a 205 W TDP, a quad-slot design, no listed power connectors, and a suggested 550 W power supply. The W5700X is longer at 305 mm (12 inches) versus 267 mm (10.5 inches) for the MI25. The MI25 has no display outputs, while the W5700X offers one HDMI 2.0b port and four Thunderbolt outputs.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The W5700X lists Vulkan 1.4 support, while the MI25 lists Vulkan 1.3. The bus interfaces are different: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the MI25 and Apple MPX for the W5700X.

Where Each One Wins

The Instinct MI25 wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 56.5% lead over the W5700X in Geekbench OpenCL is the clearest signal in the data. This card is built around raw compute throughput, with higher FP32 and FP16 numbers, more shading units, and a wider memory bus. The MI25's 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 indicate it was designed for number-crunching tasks, and the benchmark confirms that strength.

The W5700X wins in areas that do not show up in a direct head-to-head test. It has higher pixel fill rate at 130.6 GPixel/s, which suggests better performance in rasterization-heavy graphics work. Its memory bandwidth is slightly higher at 448.0 GB/s, and its boost clock of 2,040 MHz is substantially higher than the MI25's 1,500 MHz. The W5700X also has display outputs, making it usable in interactive graphics environments, whereas the MI25 has no outputs at all.

The W5700X is far more power-efficient on paper. It delivers its performance at 205 W TDP versus 300 W for the MI25, and it requires a smaller suggested power supply at 550 W versus 700 W. The 7 nm process and higher transistor density allow the W5700X to achieve competitive bandwidth and pixel rates with a lower power draw.

For workloads that favor OpenCL compute, the MI25 is the clear choice. For tasks that need display output, higher pixel throughput, or lower power consumption, the W5700X has advantages that the MI25 cannot match.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The MI25 uses the Vega 10 chip on GCN 5.0 architecture with a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The W5700X uses Navi 10 on RDNA 1.0 with a 7 nm process from TSMC. Transistor counts are 12,500 million for the MI25 and 10,300 million for the W5700X. Die sizes are 495 mm² and 251 mm² respectively, with transistor densities of 25.3M per mm² and 41.0M per mm².

Clock speeds diverge sharply. The MI25 has a base clock of 1,400 MHz and a boost of 1,500 MHz. The W5700X has a base of 1,243 MHz and a boost of 2,040 MHz. Memory clocks are 852 MHz with 1,704 Mbps effective for the MI25, versus 1,750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective for the W5700X.

Memory configurations differ in type and bus width. Both have 16 GB, but the MI25 uses HBM2 on a 2,048-bit bus with 436.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the W5700X uses GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units differ: the MI25 has 4,096 shading units and 256 TMUs, while the W5700X has 2,560 shading units and 160 TMUs. Both have 64 ROPs. Pixel rates are 96.00 GPixel/s for the MI25 and 130.6 GPixel/s for the W5700X. Texture rates are 384.0 GTexel/s and 326.4 GTexel/s respectively. FP32 is 12.29 TFLOPS versus 10.44 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 24.58 TFLOPS versus 20.89 TFLOPS.

TDP is 300 W for the MI25 and 205 W for the W5700X. Slot width is dual-slot for the MI25 and quad-slot for the W5700X. The MI25 has two 8-pin power connectors; the W5700X has none listed. Suggested PSU is 700 W versus 550 W. Bus interfaces are PCIe 3.0 x16 for the MI25 and Apple MPX for the W5700X. Display outputs are absent on the MI25 and present on the W5700X with one HDMI 2.0b and four Thunderbolt ports. Dimensions: the MI25 is 267 mm long and 111 mm high, while the W5700X is 305 mm long with no listed height.

Vulkan support differs: 1.3 for the MI25 and 1.4 for the W5700X. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The MI25 was released on 2017-06-26, while the W5700X came later on 2019-12-10. Both are end-of-life. The MI25's predecessor is listed as FirePro Data Center, while the W5700X has no predecessor listed. The W5700X has a launch MSRP of 999 USD; the MI25 has no launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 wins with a score of 68,562 versus 43,810 for the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X, a 56.5% advantage.

Q: Do the two cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (12_1) and OpenGL 4.6. They differ in Vulkan support: the MI25 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the W5700X supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The W5700X has slightly higher bandwidth at 448.0 GB/s compared to the MI25's 436.2 GB/s. The W5700X uses GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, while the MI25 uses HBM2 on a 2,048-bit bus.

Q: Can either card output video?

A: Only the W5700X has display outputs, offering one HDMI 2.0b port and four Thunderbolt ports. The MI25 has no display outputs.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The MI25 has a 300 W TDP and requires a 700 W suggested power supply. The W5700X has a 205 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested power supply.

Q: How do the two cards compare in compute throughput?

A: The MI25 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16, while the W5700X delivers 10.44 TFLOPS FP32 and 20.89 TFLOPS FP16.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in purpose. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 is the compute specialist. Its 56.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with higher FP32 and FP16 throughput and a much wider memory bus, makes it the stronger choice for OpenCL-based compute workloads. Its 90th percentile ranking among all GPUs and its tight competition with cards like the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 confirm that it belongs in a high-performance compute tier. Buyers who need raw number-crunching power and do not require display output should choose the MI25.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X is the graphics-oriented alternative. It offers display outputs, higher pixel fill rate, a higher boost clock, and lower power consumption. Its 87th percentile ranking is respectable, and its average score of 54,828 places it near the GeForce RTX 4080 and RTX 4080 SUPER in the database. It is also the only one of the two with a recorded launch MSRP, listed at 999 USD. For tasks involving rasterization, interactive graphics, or any scenario where a display connection is needed, the W5700X is the practical pick.

Neither card is a general-purpose winner. The MI25 dominates the only shared benchmark and offers superior compute specs, but it lacks outputs and draws more power. The W5700X counters with efficiency, pixel throughput, and connectivity. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload is compute-bound or graphics-bound. For OpenCL compute, the MI25 is the data-backed winner. For everything involving displays and pixel output, the W5700X has the specifications to justify its selection.