AMD Radeon PRO V620 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two professional GPUs. The AMD Radeon PRO V620 wins every recorded head-to-head test, and by substantial margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the V620 scores 128,580 against 81,528 for the W7600, a 57.7% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the V620 scores 144,364 against 92,688, a 55.8% advantage. There are no recorded tests where the W7600 comes out ahead.

That does not mean the W7600 is without purpose. The W7600 is an active product, while the V620 is end-of-life. The W7600 carries display outputs (4x DisplayPort 2.1), whereas the V620 has no outputs at all. A professional workstation that needs to drive monitors must use the W7600, or pair the V620 with a separate display adapter. The V620 is a compute-oriented card in the traditional sense: it renders frames, but it cannot present them to a screen. The W7600 is the more versatile daily driver for a desktop workstation.

The V620 also demands far more from the host system. Its suggested PSU rating is 700 W, its power connectors are 2x -pin, and it occupies a dual-slot width. The W7600 runs on a single-slot width, a single 6-pin connector, and a 300 W PSU suggestion. For a rack-mounted compute node, the V620's power profile is acceptable, but for a desk-side workstation, the W7600 is clearly the easier fit. The data indicates the V620 wins the raw throughput battle, while the W7600 wins the system integration and usability discussion.

Average benchmark scores reinforce the hierarchy. The V620 sits at the 96th percentile against all GPUs in the database. The W7600 sits at the 93rd percentile. The V620 average score is 136,472 against 87,108 for the W7600. In short, the V620 is positioned roughly in the top tier of the database, and the W7600 sits just below that tier but still within the upper range of professional GPUs. The gap between them is roughly 56.6% of the W7600 average score.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO V620 has an average benchmark score of 136,472, compared to 87,108 for the AMD Radeon PRO W7600. The V620 also holds a higher percentile rank at 96 versus 93 for the W7600.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the W7600 wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head data, the V620 wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The W7600 has zero wins in the head-to-head comparisons.

Q: Which card can output video to a display?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The AMD Radeon PRO V620 has no display outputs, so it is not suitable for direct monitor connection.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The V620 lists a suggested PSU of 700 W, uses 2x 8-pin connectors, and has a dual-slot width. The W7600 lists a suggested PSU of 300 W, uses a single 6-pin connector, and has a single-slot width.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The V620 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 256-bit bus and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card is still in production?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is marked as active in production. The AMD Radeon PRO V620 is marked as end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the V620 at 128,580 points, while the W7600 reaches 81,528 points. That is a 57.7% advantage for the V620. The margin is so large that the W7600 would need a roughly 58% improvement in raw compute performance to match the V620 in this workload. OpenCL is a common measure of general GPU compute, and the delta reflects the V620's substantially larger silicon and memory subsystem.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the V620 scores 144,364 against 92,688 for the W7600, a 55.8% difference. Vulkan tends to exercise the graphics pipeline and asynchronous compute in different ways than OpenCL, but the relative ordering remains identical. The V620 wins by roughly 51,676 points in Vulkan and by roughly 47,052 points in OpenCL. The Vulkan score for the V620 is actually higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the architecture handles Vulkan's low-level access particularly well. The W7600 shows the same pattern: its Vulkan score of 92,688 is higher than its OpenCL score of 81,528, but the proportional gap between the two cards stays nearly constant.

These two tests are the only head-to-head comparisons recorded in the database. Both are compute-oriented workloads rather than pure rasterization tests. Still, the consistency of the V620's victory, at nearly the same percentage in both APIs, indicates a fundamental throughput advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The V620 also holds a higher percentile standing in the overall database, at 96 versus 93 for the W7600.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ sharply in nearly every major specification category.

Process node: The V620 uses a 7 nm process, the W7600 uses a 6 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC.

Transistors: The V620 packs 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, giving a density of 51.5M per mm². The W7600 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2M per mm². The W7600 is the denser design, but the V620 has roughly twice the absolute transistor count and a much larger die.

Clocks: The V620 has a base clock of 1825 MHz and a boost clock of 2200 MHz. The W7600 has a base clock of 1720 MHz and a boost clock of 2440 MHz. The W7600 boosts higher, but the V620 has a higher base clock.

Memory: The V620 has 32 GB GDDR6, a 256-bit bus, 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, and memory at 2000 MHz or 16 Gbps effective. The W7600 has 8 GB GDDR6, a 128-bit bus, 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, and memory at 2250 MHz or 18 Gbps effective. The W7600 runs faster memory, but the V620 has four times the capacity and nearly double the bandwidth.

Compute units: The V620 has 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 72 ray tracing cores. The W7600 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The V620 has exactly double the TMUs and ROPs, and more than double the shading units.

Pixel and texture rates: The V620 achieves 281.6 GPixel/s and 633.6 GTexel/s. The W7600 achieves 156.2 GPixel/s and 312.3 GTexel/s.

FP32 and FP16: The V620 delivers 20.28 TFLOPS FP32 and 40.55 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS FP32 and 39.98 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). These numbers are nearly identical, a striking result given the large gap in shading units and memory bandwidth. The higher boost clock of the W7600 partially compensates for its smaller core count.

Power and physical: The V620 is 300 W with a dual-slot width, 2x 8-pin connectors, and a 700 W PSU suggestion. The W7600 is 130 W with a single-slot width, a 6-pin connector, and a 300 W PSU suggestion. The V620 is 267 mm long, 120 mm tall, and 50 mm wide. The W7600 is 241 mm long, 115 mm tall, with no recorded width.

Bus interface: The V620 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, the W7600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The V620 has double the PCIe lanes.

Display outputs: The V620 has none. The W7600 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1.

Release status: The V620 released on 2021-11-03 and is end-of-life. The W7600 released on 2023-08-02 and is active. Both share the same predecessor, Radeon Pro Vega.

Architecture Differences

The V620 is built on RDNA 2.0, while the W7600 uses RDNA 3.0. This is a generational jump in AMD's GPU architecture. The V620 is part of the Navi II Series with the Navi 21 chip. The W7600 is part of the Navi III Series, with the codename "Hotpink Bonefish" and the Navi 33 chip.

The process node shift from 7 nm to 6 nm explains some of the density difference: the W7600 crams 65.2M transistors per mm² versus 51.5M per mm² for the V620. The smaller process allows the W7600 to reach a higher boost clock, 2440 MHz versus 2200 MHz, while consuming less than half the power, 130 W versus 300 W. The W7600 achieves nearly identical FP32 throughput, 19.99 TFLOPS versus 20.28 TFLOPS, with less than half the shading units, 2048 versus 4608. That is a direct architectural efficiency gain from RDNA 3.0.

The memory architectures also reflect the two design goals. The V620 pairs a 256-bit bus with 32 GB to reach 512.0 GB/s. The W7600 pairs a 128-bit bus with 8 GB to reach 288.0 GB/s. The W7600 uses faster GDDR6 at 18 Gbps effective versus 16 Gbps on the V620, but the narrower bus caps its bandwidth. The V620 is clearly designed for capacity-hungry workloads, such as large model inference or rendering scenes that need massive framebuffers. The W7600 is designed for efficiency and compactness.

The ray tracing hardware differs as well: 72 RT cores on the V620 versus 32 on the W7600. The V620 also has double the ROPs, 128 versus 64, and double the TMUs, 288 versus 128. These differences mean the V620 should excel in fill-rate-bound and ray-traced workloads, while the W7600 relies on its higher clocks and newer architecture to stay competitive in FP32 compute.

The V620's lack of display outputs marks it as a compute or render-farm card, not a workstation display adapter. The W7600's 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs make it suitable for direct desktop use. The bus interface difference, PCIe 4.0 x16 versus x8, also matters for data transfer in compute applications. The V620's larger die and older node lead to a much higher power draw, 300 W versus 130 W, and a dual-slot cooler versus single-slot. The W7600's single-slot design and 6-pin power requirement make it far easier to install in dense workstations. The V620's 2x 8-pin requirement and 700 W PSU suggestion demand a more robust power supply.

In summary, the V620 is a high-capacity, high-throughput compute card using the previous RDNA 2.0 architecture, while the W7600 is a modern, efficient, display-capable workstation card using RDNA 3.0. The recorded benchmarks show the V620 winning decisively in compute, but the W7600 offers architectural advantages in efficiency, display output, and form factor.