AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

# AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs AMD Radeon Instinct MI25

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 and AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 represent two very different design philosophies from AMD, separated by six years of architecture evolution. The W7600, built on RDNA 3.0 at 6 nm, is a modern workstation card with display outputs and a 93rd-percentile performance ranking. The MI25, a GCN 5.0 part on 14 nm, was a compute-focused accelerator from 2017 with no display outputs and now sits at end-of-life status. Benchmark data shows the W7600 leads in the only shared test, but the MI25's unique memory configuration and compute-oriented design make it more than a simple comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available: Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 81,528 against the MI25's 68,562, a 18.9% advantage. This is a decisive single-test victory, and it aligns with the W7600's overall percentile ranking of 93 versus the MI25's 90. The W7600 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 92,688, a test the MI25 does not have a recorded result for, suggesting the newer architecture has broader API support.

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25, despite losing the OpenCL test, wins in several specification categories that matter for specific workloads. It has 16 GB of HBM2 memory versus the W7600's 8 GB of GDDR6, and its 2048-bit memory bus delivers 436.2 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the W7600's 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s. For memory-bound compute tasks that fit within 16 GB, the MI25's 51.4% higher bandwidth could provide a real advantage. The MI25 also has 4096 shading units and 256 TMUs, double the W7600's 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs, though its lower clocks (1400 MHz base, 1500 MHz boost versus 1720 MHz base, 2440 MHz boost) mean it cannot fully convert that raw hardware into performance.

The W7600 wins on efficiency, power delivery, and practical usability. It consumes 130 W versus the MI25's 300 W, requires a single 6-pin connector and a 300 W PSU, and is single-slot. The MI25 needs dual-slot space, dual 8-pin connectors, and a 700 W PSU. The W7600's 6 nm process and 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die (65.2M transistors per mm²) contrast sharply with the MI25's 14 nm process and 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die (25.3M per mm²). The W7600 also has 32 ray-tracing cores, four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the MI25 has no RT cores, no display outputs, and is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Architecture Differences

The W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed "Hotpink Bonefish," fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process. The MI25 uses the Vega 10 chip with GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. This process node difference is substantial: the W7600 packs 13,300 million transistors into 204 mm², achieving a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². The MI25, with 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, has a density of just 25.3 million per mm². The W7600's density is 2.6 times higher, which directly explains its much lower power draw.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The W7600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), yielding 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI25 uses 16 GB of HBM2 with a 2048-bit bus and a memory clock of 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective), yielding 436.2 GB/s bandwidth. The MI25's HBM2 provides 148.2 GB/s more bandwidth, but the W7600's GDDR6 runs at a much higher effective clock. The bus width difference is stark: 2048-bit versus 128-bit, a 16-fold difference that HBM2's stacked design makes possible.

Compute resources also differ significantly. The MI25 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with a texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 96.00 GPixel/s. The W7600 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with a texture rate of 312.3 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 156.2 GPixel/s. Despite having half the shading units and TMUs, the W7600 achieves a higher pixel rate due to its much higher boost clock (2440 MHz versus 1500 MHz). The MI25's higher texture rate (384.0 versus 312.3 GTexel/s) shows that raw unit count matters for texture-heavy workloads.

The W7600's FP32 performance is 19.99 TFLOPS, compared to the MI25's 12.29 TFLOPS, a 62.6% advantage. In FP16, the W7600 delivers 39.98 TFLOPS versus the MI25's 24.58 TFLOPS, both with a 2:1 ratio. The W7600 also supports newer API versions: Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3, and DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1). The MI25 has no RT cores, while the W7600 has 32.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. The W7600 scores 81,528; the MI25 scores 68,562. The W7600 wins by 12,966 points, a 18.9% margin. This is the sole head-to-head test in the data, so conclusions must be drawn carefully, but the margin is substantial and consistent with the W7600's architectural advantages.

Context from each card's nearest rivals helps position these scores. The W7600's average benchmark score is 87,108 (combining OpenCL and Vulkan results), and it sits 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (87,445 avg), 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 40HX (85,637), 4.4% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134), and 5% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671). The MI25's average score is 68,562, placing it 0.4% behind the Intel Arc A770 (68,809), 0.6% behind the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000), 1.9% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69,870), and 2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986).

These rival comparisons show that the W7600 competes in a higher performance tier. Its 18.9% lead over the MI25 in OpenCL is larger than the gap between the MI25 and any of its nearest rivals (the largest being 2% behind the Quadro P6000). The W7600 also has the Vulkan score of 92,688, which is 13.7% higher than its own OpenCL score, suggesting the card performs even better in Vulkan workloads. The MI25 has no Vulkan result, so no comparison is possible.

The deltaPct values also reveal score stability. The W7600's nearest rivals are within a tight 1.7% to 5% band, indicating that its performance is competitive with mid-range professional cards from NVIDIA's RTX A4500 family. The MI25's rivals are similarly clustered within 0.4% to 2%, but at a lower absolute performance level. The W7600's 18.9% lead in the direct comparison is thus not just a benchmark artifact—it reflects a genuine generational performance gap.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 scores 81,528 versus the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25's 68,562, giving the W7600 an 18.9% lead in the only direct head-to-head benchmark available.

Q: Does the MI25 have any advantages in memory capacity or bandwidth?

A: Yes. The MI25 has 16 GB of HBM2 memory with a 2048-bit bus and 436.2 GB/s bandwidth. The W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI25 offers 51.4% more bandwidth and double the capacity.

Q: Can the MI25 be used for display output?

A: No. The MI25 has no display outputs. The W7600 has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it suitable for workstation use with multiple monitors.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The W7600 has a 130 W TDP, uses a single 6-pin power connector, and requires a 300 W PSU. The MI25 has a 300 W TDP, uses dual 8-pin connectors, and requires a 700 W PSU.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The W7600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The MI25 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The W7600 also has 32 ray-tracing cores; the MI25 has none.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The W7600 averages 87,108, placing it 0.4% behind the Quadro GP100 and 5% behind the RTX A4500. The MI25 averages 68,562, placing it 0.4% behind the Intel Arc A770 and 2% behind the Quadro P6000.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split in use cases. For general workstation tasks, display output, modern API support, and efficiency, the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is the superior choice. It wins the only direct benchmark by 18.9%, has a 93rd-percentile ranking versus the MI25's 90th, consumes less than half the power (130 W versus 300 W), and provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. Its Vulkan score of 92,688 indicates strong performance across multiple APIs, and its 32 RT cores make it future-proof for ray-traced workloads. The W7600's launch MSRP is 599 USD.

For compute-specific tasks that require large memory capacities and very high bandwidth, the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 retains relevance. Its 16 GB of HBM2 and 436.2 GB/s bandwidth exceed the W7600's 8 GB and 288.0 GB/s, and its 4096 shading units provide raw compute hardware that could excel in memory-bound workloads. However, the MI25's 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 performance is 62.6% lower than the W7600's 19.99 TFLOPS, and its end-of-life production status, lack of display outputs, and 700 W PSU requirement limit its practical appeal.

The benchmark results indicate that the W7600's architectural efficiency—6 nm RDNA 3.0 versus 14 nm GCN 5.0—more than compensates for the MI25's raw hardware advantages. The 18.9% OpenCL lead comes despite the MI25 having double the shading units and TMUs, proving that clock speed (2440 MHz boost versus 1500 MHz boost) and modern design matter more than unit counts alone. The MI25's higher bandwidth remains its only clear performance advantage, and that only helps in specific memory-bound scenarios.

The verdict from the data: choose the W7600 for nearly any workload that requires a GPU. It is faster, more efficient, more capable in modern APIs, and still in active production. Choose the MI25 only if you have a specific need for 16 GB of HBM2 memory and 436.2 GB/s bandwidth in a compute-only environment, and you can accommodate its 300 W TDP, dual 8-pin power, and 700 W PSU requirement. For everything else, the W7600's 18.9% benchmark lead, 93rd-percentile ranking, and workstation features make it the clear recommendation.