AMD Radeon Pro W5500 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7500 Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 and AMD Radeon Pro W5500 are two professional workstation GPUs from different generations of AMD’s RDNA architecture. The data shows a decisive generational shift: the W7500 wins all nine head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the W5500 still holds its own in specific legacy or compute-oriented workloads. The W7500 achieves an average benchmark score of 16415, placing it at the 59th percentile of all GPUs, while the W5500 averages 15679, sitting at the 58th percentile. This narrow overall gap—a difference of roughly 4.7% in average score—belies the much larger deltas in individual tests, where the W7500’s newer architecture and higher specifications produce dramatic swings.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided victory for the W7500 comes in the Passmark DirectX 11 test, where it scores 125 against the W5500’s 56, a delta of 123.2%. This is more than double the performance, indicating a fundamental advantage in modern API workloads. A similar trend appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the W7500’s 68634 score crushes the W5500’s 42021, a 63.3% lead. These two results alone suggest that the W7500 is far better equipped for contemporary graphics pipelines.

The W7500 also dominates in legacy DirectX 9, scoring 200 versus 126, a 58.7% advantage. This is notable because older APIs often rely more on raw rasterization throughput than on advanced features. The W7500’s pixel rate of 108.8 GPixel/s, nearly double the W5500’s 59.36 GPixel/s, aligns perfectly with this outcome. In Passmark G3D, the W7500’s 13368 score is 48.9% higher than the W5500’s 8978, reinforcing its overall 3D rendering superiority.

However, the wins are not uniformly massive. In Passmark DirectX 12, the W7500’s 46 narrowly beats the W5500’s 39, a modest 17.9% gain. Similarly, in Passmark GPU Compute, the W7500 scores 5910 versus 4804, a 23% lead. These smaller deltas suggest that, while the W7500 is clearly faster, the W5500’s older architecture still manages to compete in certain compute-heavy scenarios, possibly due to its higher base clock of 1744 MHz compared to the W7500’s 1500 MHz.

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a 27.6% win for the W7500 (58213 vs 45615), which is significant but not overwhelming. The W7500 also wins Passmark DirectX 10 by 38.3% (65 vs 47) and Passmark G2D by 45.7% (1174 vs 806). Across all nine tests, the W7500’s average delta is roughly 49.6%, but the range is wide—from 17.9% to 123.2%—indicating that the performance gap depends heavily on the workload type.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 has an average benchmark score of 16415, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500 averages 15679. This puts the W7500 at the 59th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the W5500’s 58th percentile.

Q: What is the largest performance delta in any single test?

A: The largest delta is in Passmark DirectX 11, where the W7500 scores 125 and the W5500 scores 56, giving the W7500 a 123.2% advantage. This is more than double the W5500’s performance in that specific test.

Q: Does the W5500 win any benchmark comparisons?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the W7500 winning all nine benchmark tests, with winsA set to 9 and winsB set to 0. The W5500 does not have a single victory in the compared workloads.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in compute-oriented workloads?

A: In Passmark GPU Compute, the W7500 leads with a score of 5910 against the W5500’s 4804, a 23% advantage. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7500 scores 58213 versus 45615, a 27.6% lead. These are among the smaller deltas, suggesting the W5500 is relatively more competitive in compute than in graphics.

Q: What is the difference in DirectX 12 performance?

A: The W7500 scores 46 in Passmark DirectX 12, while the W5500 scores 39. This is a 17.9% difference, the smallest delta of any head-to-head test, indicating that both GPUs handle DirectX 12 similarly relative to their other results.

Q: Are the two GPUs close in overall ranking?

A: Yes. The W7500’s average score of 16415 places it just 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M. The W5500’s 15679 puts it 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M380.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different RDNA generations, which explains most of the performance gap. The W7500 is built on RDNA 3.0 with the Navi 33 chip, while the W5500 uses RDNA 1.0 with the Navi 14 chip. The manufacturing process differs significantly: the W7500 uses TSMC’s 6 nm node, whereas the W5500 uses the older 7 nm node. This allows the W7500 to pack 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The W5500, by contrast, has 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, with a density of 40.5M per mm².

The shader configuration is also substantially different. The W7500 features 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). It also includes 28 ray tracing cores, which the W5500 lacks entirely. The W5500 has 1408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. This difference in ROP count is critical for pixel fill rate: the W7500 delivers 108.8 GPixel/s versus the W5500’s 59.36 GPixel/s. Similarly, texture rate is higher on the W7500 at 190.4 GTexel/s versus 163.2 GTexel/s.

Compute performance shows a stark contrast. The W7500 achieves 12.19 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.37 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the W5500 manages just 5.224 TFLOPS FP32 and 10.45 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). This is more than a 2x difference in raw floating-point throughput. Memory is identical in capacity (8 GB GDDR6) and bus width (128 bit), but the W7500 runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, yielding 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W5500’s memory runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective, providing 224.0 GB/s.

Feature support also diverges. The W7500 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and DisplayPort 2.1, while the W5500 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1) and DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The W7500 has no power connectors and a 70 W TDP, requiring a 250 W PSU, whereas the W5500 needs a single 6-pin connector, a 125 W TDP, and a 300 W PSU. The W7500 is also shorter at 216 mm compared to the W5500’s 241 mm.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is the superior GPU in every head-to-head benchmark. It wins all nine tests, with deltas ranging from 17.9% in DirectX 12 to 123.2% in DirectX 11. Its higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput make it a more capable workstation card for modern workloads. The inclusion of ray tracing cores and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate further cement its position as the more future-proof option.

However, the W5500 is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 15679 is only 4.7% lower than the W7500’s 16415, and it remains competitive in compute tests where the deltas are smaller. The W5500’s higher base clock of 1744 MHz (versus 1500 MHz on the W7500) suggests it may handle short, bursty workloads more responsively, though the W7500’s 1700 MHz boost clock is lower than the W5500’s 1855 MHz. For users on a strict power budget, the W5500’s 125 W TDP is higher than the W7500’s 70 W, but the W7500 is the more efficient choice overall.

The W7500’s production status is Active, while the W5500 is End-of-life, which is a practical consideration for long-term availability. The release dates also differ: the W7500 launched on 2023-08-02, while the W5500 came out on 2020-02-09. For new purchases, the W7500 is the clear recommendation based on performance and longevity.

Specification Differences

Several key specifications differ between the two GPUs. The most impactful are the architecture (RDNA 3.0 vs RDNA 1.0), process node (6 nm vs 7 nm), and transistor count (13,300 million vs 6,400 million). The W7500 has more shading units (1792 vs 1408), more TMUs (112 vs 88), and double the ROPs (64 vs 32). It also adds 28 ray tracing cores, which the W5500 does not have.

Clocks differ, with the W7500 running at 1500 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost, while the W5500 runs at 1744 MHz base and 1855 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective on the W7500 versus 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective on the W5500. This results in a bandwidth difference of 256.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s.

Compute rates are dramatically different: FP32 is 12.19 TFLOPS on the W7500 versus 5.224 TFLOPS on the W5500, and FP16 is 24.37 TFLOPS versus 10.45 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 108.8 GPixel/s versus 59.36 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 190.4 GTexel/s versus 163.2 GTexel/s.

Power requirements differ significantly. The W7500 has a 70 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The W5500 has a 125 W TDP, needs one 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The W7500 is shorter (216 mm vs 241 mm) and narrower (20 mm width vs unspecified for the W5500). Display outputs also differ: the W7500 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1, while the W5500 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins in virtually every category. It is the clear choice for modern 3D rendering, evidenced by its 48.9% lead in Passmark G3D and its 63.3% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. Users working with DirectX 11 applications will see the biggest benefit, as the W7500’s 123.2% advantage in that test is unmatched. The W7500 also excels in legacy DirectX 9 workloads, with a 58.7% lead, and in 2D operations, with a 45.7% lead in Passmark G2D.

The W7500 is also the better option for compute-heavy tasks that use OpenCL, where its 27.6% lead is significant, and for general GPU compute, where it leads by 23%. Its higher bandwidth and FP32 throughput make it suitable for scientific simulations or machine learning inference, though neither GPU has tensor cores.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500, despite losing all benchmarks, still has niches where it is not far behind. In DirectX 12, the W5500 trails by only 17.9%, which is the smallest gap. This suggests that for applications optimized for DirectX 12, the W5500 can still provide adequate performance. Its higher clocks (1744 MHz base, 1855 MHz boost) may also make it more responsive in latency-sensitive tasks, though this is not directly measured in the benchmark data.

For users with existing 300 W PSUs, the W5500’s higher power draw is a non-issue, but the W7500’s 70 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it far easier to install in compact systems. The W5500’s End-of-life status means it may be available at reduced prices in the secondary market, but the data does not support choosing it over the W7500 on performance grounds. Ultimately, the W7500 wins on every measurable metric, while the W5500’s only advantage is its higher base and boost clocks, which do not translate into any benchmark victories.