AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7800 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two AMD professional accelerators. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, making it the outright performance leader in this comparison. Its OpenCL score of 154,366 versus 92,488 for the Instinct MI60 represents a 66.9% advantage, while the Vulkan gap is even larger: 175,422 versus 92,444, a 89.8% margin.

Looking at the broader database context, the W7800 sits in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 164,894. That places it in a tight cluster with NVIDIA RTX A5500 (165,217, just 0.2% higher), NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094, 0.7% higher), and AMD Radeon Pro W6900X (168,574, 2.2% higher). The W7800 also edges out the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB by 1.5%. This is competitive territory where small percentage swings separate cards.

The Instinct MI60, by contrast, lands in the 93rd percentile with an average score of 92,466. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671, 0.9% lower), NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134, 1.5% lower), AMD Radeon Pro VII (97,131, 4.8% higher), and AMD Radeon RX 7900M (97,487, 5.2% higher). The MI60 is essentially level with the desktop RTX A4500 but trails two AMD alternatives by roughly 5%.

The use-case split is straightforward: the W7800 is the stronger compute performer across both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The MI60, being an older design with lower raw throughput, does not win any benchmark category in this comparison. For users prioritizing maximum compute throughput, the W7800 is the clear choice. The MI60 retains relevance only in contexts where its specific memory configuration or legacy ecosystem support matters, but the recorded data shows no performance scenario where it leads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Plum Bonito. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, packing 57,700 million transistors onto a 529 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 109.1 million per square millimeter. The MI60 uses the Vega 20 chip based on GCN 5.1 architecture, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. It contains 13,230 million transistors on a 331 mm² die, giving a density of 40.0 million per square millimeter. The W7800 has roughly 4.4 times more transistors in a 60% larger die area.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The W7800 runs at a base of 1895 MHz and boosts to 2525 MHz, while the MI60 operates at 1200 MHz base and 1800 MHz boost. This 725 MHz boost advantage contributes heavily to the W7800's performance lead. Memory clocks also diverge: the W7800 uses 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) GDDR6, while the MI60 runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) HBM2.

Both cards have 32 GB of memory, but the implementations are entirely different. The W7800 uses a 256-bit GDDR6 bus delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The MI60 uses a 4096-bit HBM2 bus delivering 1.02 TB/s, nearly double the bandwidth. This is the one area where the older card has a clear architectural advantage: memory bandwidth per byte is significantly higher on the MI60.

Compute resources also differ. The W7800 has 4480 shading units, 280 texture mapping units, 128 ROPs, and 70 ray tracing cores. The MI60 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with no ray tracing cores listed. The W7800's pixel rate is 323.2 GPixel/s versus 115.2 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 707.0 GTexel/s versus 460.8 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 45.25 TFLOPS for the W7800 versus 14.75 TFLOPS for the MI60, a 3.1x difference. FP16 performance follows a similar pattern: 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 29.49 TFLOPS (2:1).

The MI60's memory bandwidth advantage does not translate into benchmark wins, suggesting that compute throughput and clock speed dominate the recorded workloads. The W7800 also supports newer API versions: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (12_1), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The W7800 has a 260 W TDP with dual-slot cooling and 2x 8-pin power connectors, requiring a 600 W suggested PSU. The MI60 has a 300 W TDP with dual-slot cooling and 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors, requiring a 700 W suggested PSU. The W7800 is slightly longer at 280 mm versus 267 mm, and slightly narrower at 110 mm versus 111 mm. The W7800 offers 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1, while the MI60 has only 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is the superior performer in this pairing. It wins both recorded benchmarks with margins of 66.9% in OpenCL and 89.8% in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 164,894 versus 92,466 puts it in a different performance class entirely. The W7800's 97th percentile ranking versus the MI60's 93rd percentile confirms this separation.

For users selecting a card for compute workloads measured by OpenCL or Vulkan, the W7800 is the only rational choice based on the recorded data. Its higher clock speeds, newer architecture, and greater compute throughput translate directly into benchmark victories. The MI60's advantages are confined to memory bandwidth (1.02 TB/s versus 576.0 GB/s) and a lower transistor count, neither of which appears in the benchmark results as a winning factor.

The MI60 is an end-of-life product released in late 2018, while the W7800 launched in 2023 and remains active. The W7800 carries a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD. The MI60 has no recorded launch MSRP. For new deployments, the W7800 offers current-generation features including ray tracing cores, DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and higher API support. The MI60's single mini-DisplayPort output and lack of ray tracing hardware make it less versatile for workstation use.

The verdict is unambiguous: choose the W7800 for performance, features, and longevity. The MI60 should only be considered if its specific HBM2 memory configuration or legacy compatibility is a hard requirement, but the benchmark data does not support choosing it for raw compute speed.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 wins both recorded tests. Its OpenCL score is 154,366 versus 92,488 for the MI60, and its Vulkan score is 175,422 versus 92,444.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The MI60 has higher memory bandwidth at 1.02 TB/s using a 4096-bit HBM2 bus, while the W7800 delivers 576.0 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR6 bus. Both cards have 32 GB of memory.

Q: What are the architecture differences?

A: The W7800 uses RDNA 3.0 (Navi 31) on a 5 nm process with 57,700 million transistors. The MI60 uses GCN 5.1 (Vega 20) on a 7 nm process with 13,230 million transistors. The W7800 also has 70 ray tracing cores, which the MI60 lacks.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The W7800 has a 260 W TDP while the MI60 has a 300 W TDP, despite the W7800 delivering significantly higher performance. The W7800 also requires a 600 W suggested PSU versus 700 W for the MI60.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The W7800 is listed as Active and was released in April 2023. The MI60 is listed as End-of-life and was released in November 2018.

Q: How does the W7800 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W7800's average score of 164,894 is within 2.2% of the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X (168,574), 0.7% of the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094), and 0.2% of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (165,217). It also leads the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB by 1.5%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the W7800 scoring 154,366 against the MI60's 92,488. That is a 66.9% delta in favor of the W7800. This result reflects the W7800's higher FP32 throughput (45.25 TFLOPS versus 14.75 TFLOPS) and its significantly higher clock speeds (2525 MHz boost versus 1800 MHz boost). The MI60's memory bandwidth advantage of 1.02 TB/s versus 576.0 GB/s does not compensate for the compute deficit in this workload.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows an even wider gap. The W7800 scores 175,422 while the MI60 scores 92,444, a 89.8% difference. Vulkan workloads often benefit from newer architecture features and driver optimization. The W7800's RDNA 3.0 architecture, with its 70 ray tracing cores and support for Vulkan 1.4, outperforms the GCN 5.1-based MI60 which supports only Vulkan 1.3. The W7800 also has a higher pixel rate (323.2 GPixel/s versus 115.2 GPixel/s) and texture rate (707.0 GTexel/s versus 460.8 GTexel/s), which likely contributes to Vulkan rendering performance.

Across both tests, the W7800 demonstrates a consistent and substantial lead. The smallest margin is 66.9% in OpenCL, which is already a dominant victory. The largest margin is 89.8% in Vulkan, approaching double the performance. The MI60's only recorded advantage in the database is its memory bandwidth specification, which does not translate into benchmark wins.

The W7800's nearest rival cluster, with scores between 162,504 and 168,574, shows that it competes closely with high-end NVIDIA workstation cards. The MI60's rival cluster, with scores between 91,134 and 97,487, places it in a lower performance tier. This head-to-head comparison confirms that the W7800 belongs to a different performance class than the MI60, despite both carrying AMD branding and 32 GB memory configurations.

For users migrating from the MI60 to the W7800, the benchmark data promises roughly 66.9% to 89.8% performance improvement depending on the workload. The W7800 also brings newer features like ray tracing, DisplayPort 2.1, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, making it a comprehensive upgrade across all measured dimensions.