AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT vs AMD Radeon RX 7700 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a decisive outcome. Across every head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, the AMD Radeon RX 7700 outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT. The Pro 5700 XT secures zero wins, while the RX 7700 claims eight. This is not a marginal victory; the deltas are consistently large, ranging from a 17.4% lead in one DirectX test to a 54.3% lead in another. The verdict for performance seekers is clear: the RX 7700 is the superior choice.

However, the verdict is not solely about raw speed. The RX 7700 falls into the 58th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 5700 XT sits higher in the 63rd percentile. This seems contradictory given the head-to-head results, but it reflects the database’s average benchmark scores. The Pro 5700 XT has an average score of 18685, whereas the RX 7700 averages 15852. This suggests that while the RX 7700 wins in their direct comparison, its overall standing against the entire GPU field is lower. The Pro 5700 XT’s average score places it near rivals like the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (18789, a 0.6% gap) and the AMD Radeon RX 560X (18626, a 0.3% gap). The RX 7700’s average score is close to the AMD Radeon R9 370X (15862, a 0.1% gap) and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 (16014, a 1% gap).

For users prioritizing the specific workloads captured in the head-to-head suite, the RX 7700 is the definitive pick. For those looking at the broader average across all recorded tests, the Pro 5700 XT appears more consistent. The Pro 5700 XT is an end-of-life product with no display outputs, designed for integration, while the RX 7700 is an active, dual-slot card with a full set of outputs. The choice depends on whether the user needs the raw, modern performance of the RX 7700 or the legacy integration profile of the Pro 5700 XT.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent distinct generations of AMD graphics technology. The Pro 5700 XT is built on the Navi 10 chip using the RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The RX 7700 uses the Navi 32 chip with the RDNA 3.0 architecture, moving to a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. This node shrink is a fundamental difference, enabling the RX 7700 to pack more transistors into a similar physical footprint.

Transistor counts reflect the generational leap. The Pro 5700 XT contains 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, yielding a density of 41.0M per mm². The RX 7700 more than doubles this, housing 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, achieving a density of 81.2M per mm². This higher density is a key enabler for the RX 7700’s performance advantage.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The Pro 5700 XT has a base clock of 1243 MHz and a boost clock of 1499 MHz. The RX 7700 starts at 1900 MHz base, boosts to 2459 MHz, and has a game clock of 2041 MHz. The RX 7700’s higher frequencies, combined with the newer architecture, drive its benchmark lead.

Memory configurations are similar in size but different in speed. Both cards feature 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus. The Pro 5700 XT’s memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective), delivering 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7700’s memory runs at 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective), achieving 624.1 GB/s. This 240 GB/s bandwidth advantage is significant for memory-intensive tasks.

Feature support diverges as well. The RX 7700 includes 40 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro 5700 XT. The RX 7700 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro 5700 XT is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). OpenGL support is identical at 4.6, and Vulkan is the same at 1.4. The RX 7700’s pixel rate of 236.1 GPixel/s and texture rate of 393.4 GTexel/s far exceed the Pro 5700 XT’s 95.94 GPixel/s and 239.8 GTexel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RX 7700 wins every recorded head-to-head test. The largest margin is in Passmark DirectX 11, where the RX 7700 scores 186 against the Pro 5700 XT’s 85, a 54.3% lead. This suggests a major advantage in legacy DirectX 11 workloads, likely due to the newer architecture’s more efficient shader execution.

In Passmark G3D, the RX 7700 scores 20974 versus 12547, a 40.2% lead. This is a broad 3D graphics test, and the result indicates the RX 7700 is significantly faster in general-purpose 3D rendering. The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a similar story: the RX 7700 scores 106028 against 59467, a 43.9% advantage. This measures general compute performance across various GPUs, and the RX 7700’s 25.18 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, compared to the Pro 5700 XT’s 7.675 TFLOPS, explains the gap.

The compute-focused Passmark GPU Compute test also favors the RX 7700 heavily. It scores 10963 versus 5787, a 47.2% lead. This aligns with the FP32 and FP16 differences. The Pro 5700 XT offers FP16 at 15.35 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the RX 7700 provides 25.18 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). The RX 7700’s raw compute power is substantially higher.

Smaller but still clear wins appear in other tests. Passmark DirectX 10 shows the RX 7700 at 92 versus 76, a 17.4% lead. Passmark DirectX 12 shows 96 versus 59, a 38.5% lead. Passmark DirectX 9 shows 261 versus 153, a 41.4% lead. Even the 2D test, Passmark G2D, goes to the RX 7700 at 1206 versus 810, a 32.8% lead. This consistency across API generations and workload types reinforces the RX 7700’s dominance.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the recorded head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 wins all eight head-to-head tests. Its leads range from 17.4% in Passmark DirectX 10 to 54.3% in Passmark DirectX 11.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The RX 7700 has a memory bandwidth of 624.1 GB/s, while the Pro 5700 XT has 384.0 GB/s. Both use 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Does the RX 7700 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the RX 7700 includes 40 ray tracing cores. The Pro 5700 XT has no ray tracing cores listed in the database.

Q: What is the performance percentile standing for each card?

A: The Pro 5700 XT is in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 7700 is in the 58th percentile. This is based on their average benchmark scores of 18685 and 15852, respectively.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 7700 has a boost clock of 2459 MHz, compared to the Pro 5700 XT’s boost clock of 1499 MHz.

Q: Are there differences in the DirectX support?

A: Yes, the RX 7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro 5700 XT supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7700 wins in every scenario covered by the head-to-head benchmarks. Its strengths lie in modern compute and graphics workloads. The 54.3% lead in DirectX 11, the 47.2% lead in GPU compute, and the 43.9% lead in OpenCL all point to a card that excels in both gaming and computational tasks. Its higher texture rate (393.4 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (236.1 GPixel/s) make it suitable for high-resolution rendering and texture-heavy applications. The ray tracing cores add a capability the Pro 5700 XT cannot match.

The Pro 5700 XT, despite losing every direct test, holds a higher percentile ranking. Its average benchmark score of 18685 is higher than the RX 7700’s 15852. This is because the Pro 5700 XT’s score is close to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 (18789), while the RX 7700’s score is near the AMD Radeon R9 370X (15862). In the context of all recorded GPUs, the Pro 5700 XT appears more balanced across a wider set of tests. Its lower power draw, at 130 W versus the RX 7700’s 200 W, and its IGP slot width, suggest it is designed for systems where power and space are constrained. It has no display outputs, indicating it is intended for compute or rendering tasks on integrated platforms.

The RX 7700 is the clear winner for users needing the fastest recorded performance in the benchmark suite. The Pro 5700 XT may be relevant for legacy integration scenarios or where its lower power profile is critical.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Chip: Navi 10 (Pro 5700 XT) versus Navi 32 (RX 7700)
• Architecture: RDNA 1.0 versus RDNA 3.0
• Process Node: 7 nm versus 5 nm
• Transistors: 10,300 million versus 28,100 million
• Die Size: 251 mm² versus 346 mm²
• Transistor Density: 41.0M / mm² versus 81.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1243 MHz versus 1900 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1499 MHz versus 2459 MHz
• Game Clock: None recorded versus 2041 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus 2438 MHz (19.5 Gbps effective)
• Memory Bandwidth: 384.0 GB/s versus 624.1 GB/s
• ROPs: 64 versus 96
• Ray Tracing Cores: None versus 40
• Pixel Rate: 95.94 GPixel/s versus 236.1 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 239.8 GTexel/s versus 393.4 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 7.675 TFLOPS versus 25.18 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 15.35 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 25.18 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 130 W versus 200 W
• Slot Width: IGP versus Dual-slot
• Power Connectors: None versus 2x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 300 W versus 550 W
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Dimensions: Not recorded versus 267 mm length, 135 mm height, 50 mm width
• Production Status: End-of-life versus Active
• Release Date: 2020-08-03 versus 2025-09-17