AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs AMD Radeon PRO W6800 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 has a much higher average benchmark score of 135,396, while the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 scores 68,562. This puts the W6800 in the 96th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 90th percentile for the MI25.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Radeon PRO W6800 scores 121,808 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 77.7% higher than the MI25's score of 68,562. The W6800 wins this head-to-head benchmark outright.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the Radeon PRO W6800?

A: The nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo, which scores 135,774 and is 0.3% ahead, the AMD Radeon PRO V620 at 136,472 (0.8% ahead), and the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 (0.1% behind). The W6800 sits within 1% of all these cards.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the Radeon Instinct MI25?

A: The MI25's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A770 at 68,809 (0.4% ahead), the NVIDIA CMP 90HX at 69,000 (0.6% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 at 69,870 (1.9% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 at 69,986 (2% ahead). The MI25 trails all of them slightly.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the Radeon PRO W6800 has dedicated ray tracing hardware, with 60 RT cores. The Radeon Instinct MI25 has no RT cores listed in the database.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Radeon PRO W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Instinct MI25 has 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 436.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different architectural generations. The Radeon PRO W6800 is built on RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 21 chip, while the Radeon Instinct MI25 uses the older GCN 5.0 architecture with the Vega 10 chip. This architectural gap is reflected in the process technology: the W6800 uses TSMC's 7 nm node, whereas the MI25 relies on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process.

The transistor counts tell a story of design philosophy. The Navi 21 chip packs 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 51.5M per mm². The Vega 10 chip, by contrast, contains 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, with a density of only 25.3M per mm². The W6800 thus crams more than twice the transistor density into a similar die area.

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The W6800 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, while the MI25 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a much wider 2048-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the W6800's faster memory clock of 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) delivers 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, exceeding the MI25's 436.2 GB/s from its 852 MHz HBM2 clock.

Compute resources are distributed differently. The MI25 actually has more shading units at 4096 versus the W6800's 3840, and more texture mapping units at 256 versus 240. However, the W6800 has more ROPs at 96 versus 64. The W6800 also adds 60 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the MI25. The architectural efficiency of RDNA 2.0 shows in the FP32 throughput: the W6800 reaches 17.83 TFLOPS, while the MI25 manages 12.29 TFLOPS despite having more shaders.

The W6800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI25 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The W6800 also uses PCIe 4.0 x16, double the bandwidth of the MI25's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The Radeon PRO W6800 scores 121,808 against the MI25's 68,562, a delta of 77.7%. This is a decisive victory for the W6800, and the margin reflects the generational leap in architecture and memory technology.

Context from the rival sets reinforces this result. The W6800's average score of 135,396 places it alongside professional workstation cards like the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218, just 0.1% behind) and the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774, 0.3% ahead). The MI25's average score of 68,562, meanwhile, places it in the company of the Intel Arc A770 (68,809) and the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000). The gap between the two cards is roughly the same as the gap between these two entirely different performance tiers.

In the Geekbench Metal test, the W6800 scores 174,420, and in Geekbench Vulkan it scores 109,961. No comparable Metal or Vulkan scores exist for the MI25 in the database, so those tests cannot be compared directly. However, the OpenCL result alone establishes a clear hierarchy: the W6800 operates at nearly double the raw compute throughput of the MI25 in this workload.

It is worth remembering the MI25's nearest rivals all sit within 2% of its score, meaning it is competitive with its own generation of cards. The W6800 similarly sits within 1% of its nearest rivals. The performance gap between the two cards is therefore not an anomaly but a reflection of their respective positions in the GPU hierarchy.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is 7 nm for the W6800 versus 14 nm for the MI25. The W6800 has 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die; the MI25 has 12,500 million on a 495 mm² die, giving transistor densities of 51.5M per mm² and 25.3M per mm² respectively.

Clock speeds favor the W6800, with a base clock of 1575 MHz and boost of 2322 MHz, compared to the MI25's 1400 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for the W6800 versus 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective) for the MI25.

Memory capacity and type are different: 32 GB of GDDR6 versus 16 GB of HBM2. The bus widths are 256 bit and 2048 bit respectively, yet the W6800 still achieves higher bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s versus 436.2 GB/s.

The compute unit breakdown shows the MI25 has more shading units (4096 vs 3840) and TMUs (256 vs 240), but the W6800 has more ROPs (96 vs 64) and adds 60 RT cores. Pixel rate is 222.9 GPixel/s for the W6800 versus 96.00 GPixel/s for the MI25. Texture rate is 557.3 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 17.83 TFLOPS versus 12.29 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 35.67 TFLOPS versus 24.58 TFLOPS.

Power requirements differ: the W6800 has a 250 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors, while the MI25 has a 300 W TDP with a 700 W suggested PSU and 2x 8-pin connectors. The W6800 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the MI25 has no display outputs at all. The W6800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16; the MI25 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Dimensions are similar in length at 267 mm, with the W6800 slightly taller at 120 mm versus 111 mm, and the W6800 has a listed width of 50 mm while the MI25's width is not recorded.

The W6800 was released on 2021-06-07, while the MI25 was released on 2017-06-26. Both are end-of-life products. The W6800 has a launch MSRP of 2,249 USD; no launch MSRP is recorded for the MI25.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is the substantially faster card in every measurable benchmark category. Its 77.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL over the MI25 is consistent with its higher average score, higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, faster memory bandwidth, and more modern architecture.

The MI25's one advantage is its larger count of shading units and TMUs, but this does not translate into higher performance. The W6800's RDNA 2.0 architecture achieves higher clock speeds, better efficiency per transistor, and superior pixel and texture rates despite the MI25 having more of certain compute units.

For a professional workstation or content creation workload where compute performance matters, the W6800 is the clear choice from the recorded data. For a compute-only card with no display outputs, the MI25 is limited to server or accelerator roles, and even there it is outperformed by the W6800 across the board.

The W6800 also offers additional features that the MI25 lacks, including ray tracing support, a newer DirectX version, PCIe 4.0, and display outputs. These are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamentally newer and more capable product.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W6800 wins in the only head-to-head benchmark recorded: Geekbench OpenCL, by 77.7%. It also has higher average benchmark scores (135,396 vs 68,562), a higher percentile ranking (96th vs 90th), higher FP32 throughput (17.83 TFLOPS vs 12.29 TFLOPS), higher FP16 throughput (35.67 TFLOPS vs 24.58 TFLOPS), higher pixel rate (222.9 GPixel/s vs 96.00 GPixel/s), and higher texture rate (557.3 GTexel/s vs 384.0 GTexel/s). It has double the memory capacity at 32 GB versus 16 GB, higher bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s versus 436.2 GB/s, and supports ray tracing, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and PCIe 4.0.

The Radeon Instinct MI25 wins in no recorded benchmark. Its only statistical advantages are a higher shading unit count (4096 vs 3840), higher TMU count (256 vs 240), a wider memory bus (2048 bit vs 256 bit), and a lower TDP per unit of compute. However, none of these advantages produce a benchmark victory. In terms of use cases, the MI25 might be considered for legacy compute deployments where its HBM2 memory and wider bus are already integrated into existing infrastructure, but the recorded performance data does not show any workload where it beats the W6800.

The W6800 is the appropriate choice for any task involving rendering, ray tracing, high-resolution compute, or display output. The MI25 is a compute-only accelerator from an earlier generation, and its role in a modern system would be limited to scenarios where its specific memory characteristics are required and its lower performance is acceptable.