AMD Radeon PRO V710 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 and AMD Radeon PRO V710 are both professional workstation GPUs built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, but they occupy very different positions in the market. The W7600 is a compact, display-oriented board aimed at traditional workstation workflows, while the V710 is a headless compute accelerator with a massive memory pool. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear split between raw compute throughput and overall system balance, and the numbers reveal that the V710 dominates in one specific test while the W7600 holds its own in others.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are stark. The AMD Radeon PRO V710 scores 116,460 points, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 scores 81,528 points. That is a 30% advantage for the V710, a decisive margin that reflects its larger chip, more shading units, and higher memory bandwidth. In this single head-to-head measurement, the V710 wins outright, and the delta is significant enough to matter for any compute-heavy workload.

However, the story does not end there. The W7600 has two additional benchmark entries in its profile: Geekbench Vulkan at 92,688 points and an average benchmark score of 87,108. The V710 also has a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 853, but the database does not provide a corresponding W7600 score for that test, so no direct comparison is possible there. The average benchmark score, which aggregates all recorded tests for each GPU, is where the picture becomes more nuanced. The W7600 averages 87,108, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs. The V710 averages 58,657, which is only the 88th percentile. This discrepancy is curious: the V710 wins the OpenCL test by 30%, yet its overall average is dragged down by the inclusion of the 3DMark Steel Nomad score, which appears to be a lower result relative to its OpenCL performance.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each GPU adds context. The W7600 sits near the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, which averages 87,445, just 0.4% higher. It also trails the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (average 91,671) by 5% and the RTX A4500 Mobile (average 91,134) by 4.4%, while running ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 40HX (average 85,637) by 1.7%. The V710, by contrast, is clustered with a very different set of hardware: the NVIDIA P102-100 (average 58,528, 0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT (average 58,392, 0.5% behind), the Intel Arc A570M (average 58,239, 0.7% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM (average 58,085, 1% behind). These rival groups tell two separate stories: the W7600 competes with high-end mobile and desktop workstation GPUs, while the V710 sits alongside consumer and mining-oriented cards in overall average performance, despite its much higher OpenCL score.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divergence between these two GPUs is substantial. The W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The V710 uses the larger Navi 32 chip, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, packing 28,100 million transistors into a 346 mm² die. The process node difference (6 nm versus 5 nm) contributes to a higher transistor density for the V710: 81.2 million transistors per square millimeter compared to 65.2 million for the W7600. This is a fundamental difference in manufacturing sophistication, and it shows in the raw compute resources.

The V710 has 3,456 shading units, 216 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units, along with 54 ray tracing cores. The W7600 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The V710 also has a higher base clock (1900 MHz versus 1720 MHz), though its boost clock is lower (2000 MHz versus 2440 MHz). The W7600's higher boost clock helps it narrow the gap in certain workloads, but the V710's sheer number of execution units gives it a raw throughput advantage.

Memory is where the two GPUs diverge most dramatically. The W7600 comes with 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The V710 has 28 GB of GDDR6 on a 224-bit bus, producing 504.0 GB/s of bandwidth. That is 3.5 times more memory capacity and roughly 75% more bandwidth. The V710 also uses a wider PCIe interface (PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7600), which matters for compute workloads that stream data from host memory.

The floating-point capabilities also differ. The W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32 and 39.98 TFLOPS of FP16 (with a 2:1 ratio). The V710 offers 27.65 TFLOPS of FP32 and 27.65 TFLOPS of FP16, but with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it does not double its FP16 throughput. This is a notable architectural choice: the V710 prioritizes consistent FP32 performance over the accelerated FP16 path that the W7600 provides. For workloads that rely on FP16 with mixed precision, the W7600 could be surprisingly competitive, despite its lower overall compute count.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data points to a clear division of labor. The V710 wins the head-to-head OpenCL test by 30%, and its massive 28 GB memory pool and 504.0 GB/s bandwidth make it the obvious choice for large datasets, machine learning inference, or any workload that requires holding substantial amounts of data on the GPU. Its higher FP32 throughput (27.65 TFLOPS versus 19.99 TFLOPS) and superior texture rate (432.0 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s) reinforce this.

The W7600, however, has its own advantages. Its 8 GB memory is modest, but the card is single-slot, requires only a single 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W, compared to the V710's 450 W recommendation. The W7600 also has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the V710 has no display outputs at all. This makes the W7600 suitable for traditional workstation tasks that need visual output: CAD, 3D modeling, video editing, or any multi-monitor setup. The V710 is purely a compute accelerator, which means it requires a separate graphics solution in the system.

The W7600's higher boost clock (2440 MHz versus 2000 MHz) and its FP16 capability (39.98 TFLOPS) give it an edge in workloads that can leverage half-precision arithmetic, even though its FP32 is lower. The pixel rate also favors the W7600 in some respects: 156.2 GPixel/s versus 192.0 GPixel/s for the V710, which is actually a win for the V710, but the W7600's higher clock speed compensates in rasterization-heavy tasks that rely on clock frequency rather than raw pixel throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO V710 has 28 GB of GDDR6, which is 3.5 times the 8 GB found on the AMD Radeon PRO W7600.

Q: Why does the V710 have a lower average benchmark score despite winning the OpenCL test?

A: The V710's average score of 58,657 includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 853, which is lower than its OpenCL score of 116,460. The W7600's average of 87,108 is based on its OpenCL and Vulkan scores, which are closer in magnitude.

Q: Can either GPU be used for display output?

A: The W7600 has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The V710 has no display outputs, making it a headless compute board.

Q: What is the FP16 performance difference?

A: The W7600 offers 39.98 TFLOPS of FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the V710 offers 27.65 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1 ratio). In FP16-heavy tasks, the W7600 actually exceeds the V710.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The W7600 has a TDP of 130 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W, using a single 6-pin connector. The V710 has a TDP of 158 W and a suggested PSU of 450 W, using a single 8-pin connector.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The W7600 ranks in the 93rd percentile, while the V710 ranks in the 88th percentile, based on the database's aggregate scoring.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Chip: Navi 33 (W7600) versus Navi 32 (V710)
• Process node: 6 nm (W7600) versus 5 nm (V710)
• Transistors: 13,300 million (W7600) versus 28,100 million (V710)
• Die size: 204 mm² (W7600) versus 346 mm² (V710)
• Transistor density: 65.2M / mm² (W7600) versus 81.2M / mm² (V710)
• Base clock: 1720 MHz (W7600) versus 1900 MHz (V710)
• Boost clock: 2440 MHz (W7600) versus 2000 MHz (V710)
• Memory size: 8 GB (W7600) versus 28 GB (V710)
• Memory bus width: 128 bit (W7600) versus 224 bit (V710)
• Memory bandwidth: 288.0 GB/s (W7600) versus 504.0 GB/s (V710)
• Shading units: 2048 (W7600) versus 3456 (V710)
• TMUs: 128 (W7600) versus 216 (V710)
• ROPs: 64 (W7600) versus 96 (V710)
• RT cores: 32 (W7600) versus 54 (V710)
• Pixel rate: 156.2 GPixel/s (W7600) versus 192.0 GPixel/s (V710)
• Texture rate: 312.3 GTexel/s (W7600) versus 432.0 GTexel/s (V710)
• FP32: 19.99 TFLOPS (W7600) versus 27.65 TFLOPS (V710)
• FP16: 39.98 TFLOPS (W7600) versus 27.65 TFLOPS (V710)
• TDP: 130 W (W7600) versus 158 W (V710)
• Power connector: 1x 6-pin (W7600) versus 1x 8-pin (V710)
• Suggested PSU: 300 W (W7600) versus 450 W (V710)
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 (W7600) versus PCIe 4.0 x16 (V710)
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1 (W7600) versus No outputs (V710)
• Release date: 2023-08-02 (W7600) versus 2024-10-02 (V710)
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD (W7600); no MSRP recorded for the V710

The Verdict

The data suggests two distinct purchase profiles. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is the choice for a workstation that needs to drive displays and handle a mix of graphics and compute tasks. Its 93rd percentile ranking, four DisplayPort outputs, lower power draw, and FP16 acceleration make it suitable for interactive 3D work, video editing, and any environment where a human is looking at the output. The V710, on the other hand, is for server or rack-mounted compute nodes where display output is irrelevant. Its 28 GB memory capacity, 504.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 30% OpenCL advantage are the decisive factors for large-scale data processing, AI inference, or batch rendering.

The average benchmark scores complicate the picture: the W7600's average is 87,108, while the V710's is 58,657, a gap driven by the V710's low 3DMark Steel Nomad result. This implies that if your workload is heavily graphics-centric, the W7600 is the stronger performer. If your workload is pure compute, the V710's OpenCL win is the more relevant metric. The choice ultimately rests on whether you need visual output and FP16 throughput or raw memory capacity and FP32 compute. Each GPU wins in its intended domain, and the benchmark data reinforces that split rather than suggesting a single superior product.