AMD Radeon PRO V620 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7800 Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 and AMD Radeon PRO V620 are both 32 GB workstation cards from AMD, but they belong to different architectural generations and target different workload profiles. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, yet the V620 retains relevance through its own strengths. Benchmark results indicate the W7800 leads in both available tests, but the story is more nuanced when considering power, connectivity, and the specific use cases each card was designed to serve.

Where Each One Wins

The W7800 wins outright in raw compute performance. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 154,366 against the V620’s 128,580, a 20.1% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens to 21.5%, with the W7800 scoring 175,422 versus 144,364. These two wins give the W7800 a clean sweep in head-to-head benchmarks.

However, the V620 wins in a different, less obvious category: power efficiency per unit of compute. While the W7800 delivers higher absolute scores, it does so with a 260 W TDP, whereas the V620 draws 300 W. This means the W7800 produces more performance per watt, but the V620 is not far behind in raw throughput relative to its power draw. The V620 also holds a slight advantage in shading unit count (4608 vs 4480) and texture mapping units (288 vs 280), though these do not translate into benchmark victories.

For display-centric workloads, the W7800 is the clear winner because it offers 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The V620 has no display outputs at all, making it unsuitable for any task requiring direct monitor connection. This positions the V620 as a compute-only accelerator, while the W7800 can serve both rendering and display duties.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different RDNA generations. The W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Plum Bonito. It is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, containing 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The V620 uses the Navi 21 chip with RDNA 2.0, fabricated on a 7 nm process, with 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, giving a density of 51.5M per mm². This means the W7800 packs more than twice the transistor count into a nearly identical die area, thanks to the denser 5 nm node.

Clock speeds also differ. The W7800 runs at a base of 1895 MHz and boosts to 2525 MHz, while the V620 operates at 1825 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost. Memory clocks follow suit: the W7800 uses 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) GDDR6, while the V620 uses 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). Both cards share a 256-bit memory bus and 32 GB of GDDR6, but the W7800 reaches 576.0 GB/s bandwidth versus the V620’s 512.0 GB/s.

The W7800 has 70 ray tracing cores, while the V620 has 72. Despite fewer RT cores, the W7800 achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 323.2 GPixel/s and 707.0 GTexel/s, compared to the V620’s 281.6 GPixel/s and 633.6 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is dramatically higher on the W7800 at 45.25 TFLOPS, versus 20.28 TFLOPS on the V620. FP16 follows the same pattern, with 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) on the W7800 versus 40.55 TFLOPS (2:1) on the V620.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 scores 154,366 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 20.1% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO V620’s 128,580.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO V620 have any display outputs?

A: No. The V620 lists "No outputs" in its display outputs field, making it a compute-only card. The W7800, in contrast, provides 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two cards?

A: The W7800 has a transistor density of 109.1M per mm² on a 5 nm process, while the V620 has 51.5M per mm² on a 7 nm process. This is a direct result of the newer manufacturing node.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The W7800 boosts to 2525 MHz, while the V620 boosts to 2200 MHz. The W7800’s base clock is also higher at 1895 MHz versus 1825 MHz.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The W7800 delivers 576.0 GB/s, while the V620 delivers 512.0 GB/s. Both use 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, but the W7800’s memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the power supply recommendations?

A: The W7800 suggests a 600 W PSU, while the V620 suggests a 700 W PSU. Interestingly, the W7800 has a lower TDP (260 W) than the V620 (300 W), despite being faster.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7800 | AMD Radeon PRO V620 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Navi 31 | Navi 21 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 57,700 million | 26,800 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 109.1M / mm² | 51.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1895 MHz | 1825 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2525 MHz | 2200 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4480 | 4608 |

| TMUs | 280 | 288 |

| RT Cores | 70 | 72 |

| Pixel Rate | 323.2 GPixel/s | 281.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 707.0 GTexel/s | 633.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 45.25 TFLOPS | 20.28 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) | 40.55 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 260 W | 300 W |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 700 W |

| Display Outputs | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 | No outputs |

| Dimensions | 280 mm x 110 mm x 40 mm | 267 mm x 120 mm x 50 mm |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-04-12 | 2021-11-03 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | — |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a decisive win for the W7800. Its score of 154,366 surpasses the V620’s 128,580 by 20.1%. This is not a marginal difference; it reflects the W7800’s superior FP32 throughput (45.25 TFLOPS vs 20.28 TFLOPS) and higher memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s vs 512.0 GB/s). For compute-heavy workloads like simulation or rendering, this gap translates to noticeably shorter processing times.

The Geekbench Vulkan test amplifies the W7800’s lead further. Here, the W7800 scores 175,422 against the V620’s 144,364, a 21.5% advantage. Vulkan performance often benefits from architectural efficiencies, and the RDNA 3.0 design appears to extract more from the same memory bus width. The W7800’s higher boost clock (2525 MHz vs 2200 MHz) likely contributes to this expanded margin.

Context from nearest rivals adds perspective. The W7800’s average benchmark score is 164,894, placing it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (165,217) and 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (162,504). The V620’s average score of 136,472 sits just 0.5% above the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774) and 0.8% above the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396). This means the W7800 competes at a higher performance tier entirely, while the V620 trades blows with last-generation workstations.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation for most buyers: choose the AMD Radeon PRO W7800. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by over 20%, offers display outputs, runs at a lower TDP (260 W vs 300 W), and carries a smaller PSU recommendation (600 W vs 700 W). Its active production status and 2023 release date also suggest longer driver support compared to the V620, which is end-of-life and was released in 2021. The W7800’s FP32 performance of 45.25 TFLOPS is more than double the V620’s 20.28 TFLOPS, making it the superior choice for compute-intensive tasks.

The AMD Radeon PRO V620 still has a niche. Its higher shading unit count (4608 vs 4480) and more RT cores (72 vs 70) hint at marginal advantages in certain ray-traced workloads, though the benchmarks do not confirm this. Its end-of-life status means it may be available at a different price point, but that cannot be assessed from the data. For users who do not need display outputs and are constrained by a 700 W PSU budget, the V620 remains a functional compute accelerator. However, its lower bandwidth, slower clocks, and half the FP32 throughput make it an inferior choice when performance is the priority. The verdict is clear: the W7800 is the more capable card across every measurable benchmark metric.