AMD Radeon Pro W5700 vs AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results between these two AMD cards paint a lopsided picture, but the single win for the Radeon Pro W5700 is a significant one. Across nine recorded head-to-head tests, the Radeon RX 7700 XT claims eight victories, while the Pro W5700 takes one. The most dramatic difference appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 7700 XT scores 138,383 against the Pro W5700's 74,613, a 46.1% gap. This is a massive margin in raw compute workloads and sets the tone for the rest of the comparison.

However, the Pro W5700's sole win is in Geekbench Vulkan, where it posts 70,706 versus the RX 7700 XT's 46,443. That is a 52.2% advantage for the older card, a surprising reversal that suggests driver maturity or architectural quirks favor the RDNA 1.0 part in this specific API test. It is the only test where the Pro W5700 leads, and it leads by a wide margin, making it a notable outlier in an otherwise one-sided dataset.

Moving to DirectX tests, the RX 7700 XT dominates across the board. In Passmark DirectX 11, the RX 7700 XT scores 232 against 104, a 55.2% difference, the largest delta in the entire head-to-head set. DirectX 12 shows a 31.6% gap (79 versus 54), DirectX 10 a 26.1% gap (119 versus 88), and DirectX 9 a 23.5% gap (294 versus 225). These results indicate that in legacy and modern DirectX titles alike, the newer card holds a clear and consistent edge.

The synthetic Passmark suites reinforce this trend. In G3D, the RX 7700 XT scores 22,547 versus 14,520, a 35.6% lead. In GPU Compute, the gap widens to 49.7%, with scores of 12,912 and 6,495 respectively. Even the 2D test, Passmark G2D, shows a 22.6% advantage for the RX 7700 XT (1,161 versus 899). Across all these metrics, the RX 7700 XT demonstrates a performance class above the Pro W5700, with the only exception being the Vulkan test where the older card's architecture appears to have a distinct advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon RX 7700 XT is the clear winner for compute-heavy and general 3D tasks. Its OpenCL score is nearly double that of the Pro W5700, and its Passmark GPU Compute result is 49.7% higher. For anyone running GPGPU workloads, scientific simulations, or rendering tasks that leverage OpenCL, the RX 7700 XT is the obvious choice based on this data. The DirectX results also make it the pick for gaming and DirectX-based applications, as it leads by margins ranging from 23.5% to 55.2% across all four DirectX versions tested. The G3D score, which is a broad indicator of 3D rendering performance, also favors the RX 7700 XT by 35.6%.

The Radeon Pro W5700, on the other hand, has a single but notable niche: Vulkan. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 70,706 is 52.2% higher than the RX 7700 XT's 46,443. This is a substantial lead that cannot be ignored. For developers targeting Vulkan, or for workloads that are specifically optimized for this API, the Pro W5700 might be the better fit despite its age. The data suggests that in this specific test, the Pro W5700's RDNA 1.0 architecture with its 7 nm process and 8 GB of memory delivers superior results compared to the RDNA 3.0 part.

Outside of Vulkan, there is no other test where the Pro W5700 wins. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 25,726, while the RX 7700 XT averages 22,549. This is a peculiar situation: the Pro W5700 has a higher average score, but that is skewed by its massive Vulkan win. In practice, the RX 7700 XT wins the majority of individual tests, and its wins are consistent across compute, DirectX, and general 3D performance. The Pro W5700 is a specialist, while the RX 7700 XT is a generalist with broader strengths.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Pro W5700 uses Navi 10, based on RDNA 1.0, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The RX 7700 XT uses Navi 32, based on RDNA 3.0, on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. This process shrink is significant: the RX 7700 XT packs 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, while the Pro W5700 has 10,300 million on a 251 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story, 81.2 million per mm² for the RX 7700 XT versus 41.0 million per mm² for the Pro W5700, indicating a much denser and more modern design.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The Pro W5700 has a base clock of 1400 MHz and a boost clock of 1880 MHz. The RX 7700 XT has a lower base clock of 1435 MHz, but a much higher boost clock of 2544 MHz, with a game clock of 2171 MHz. This explains part of the performance gap: the RX 7700 XT can sustain much higher frequencies under load.

Memory configurations diverge as well. The Pro W5700 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7700 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, but with a slightly lower bandwidth of 432.0 GB/s. The larger capacity is a clear advantage for modern workloads, even if the bus width is narrower. The RX 7700 XT also has 54 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro W5700, which has none.

The shading units, texture mapping units, and raster operations units all favor the RX 7700 XT: 3456 vs 2304 shading units, 216 vs 144 TMUs, and 96 vs 64 ROPs. The pixel rate and texture rate reflect this, with the RX 7700 XT at 244.2 GPixel/s and 549.5 GTexel/s versus the Pro W5700's 120.3 GPixel/s and 270.7 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 35.17 TFLOPS for the RX 7700 XT versus 8.663 TFLOPS for the Pro W5700, a fourfold difference. The RX 7700 XT also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the Pro W5700 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for most use cases: the Radeon RX 7700 XT is the superior card. It wins 8 of 9 head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 22.6% to 55.2%. Its OpenCL performance is 46.1% better, its DirectX 11 performance is 55.2% better, and its GPU Compute performance is 49.7% better. For gaming, general 3D work, or compute tasks, the RX 7700 XT is the clear recommendation based on the recorded benchmarks. Its newer architecture, higher clock speeds, more shading units, and ray tracing support make it a more capable and future-proof option.

The one exception is Vulkan. If your workload is heavily dependent on this API, the Pro W5700's 52.2% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is a strong argument for choosing it. This is a specialized scenario, and the data suggests that the RDNA 1.0 architecture has a unique advantage here. However, for everything else, the RX 7700 XT is the better choice.

The Pro W5700 is an end-of-life product, released in 2019, while the RX 7700 XT is active, released in 2023. The RX 7700 XT also has a higher average benchmark score in the overall database (22,549 vs 25,726, though this is skewed by the Vulkan outlier), but its individual wins are more consistent and broader. The RX 7700 XT is the card to pick for almost any practical purpose, and the Pro W5700 should only be considered for Vulkan-specific tasks where its lead is decisive.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT, which scores 138,383 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 74,613 for the Pro W5700, a 46.1% difference.

Q: Does the Pro W5700 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 70,706, which is 52.2% higher than the RX 7700 XT's 46,443.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The RX 7700 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6, while the Pro W5700 has 8 GB of GDDR6.

Q: What is the process node for each card?

A: The Pro W5700 is on a 7 nm process, while the RX 7700 XT is on a 5 nm process, both from TSMC.

Q: Does the RX 7700 XT support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 54 ray tracing cores, while the Pro W5700 has none.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 7700 XT, with a boost clock of 2544 MHz, compared to the Pro W5700's boost clock of 1880 MHz.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro W5700 | AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 10,300 million | 28,100 million |

| Die Size | 251 mm² | 346 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 41.0M / mm² | 81.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1400 MHz | 1435 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1880 MHz | 2544 MHz |

| Game Clock | N/A | 2171 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 3456 |

| TMUs | 144 | 216 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| RT Cores | N/A | 54 |

| Pixel Rate | 120.3 GPixel/s | 244.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 270.7 GTexel/s | 549.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 8.663 TFLOPS | 35.17 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 17.33 TFLOPS (2:1) | 35.17 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 205 W | 245 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 8-pin |

| Display Outputs | 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

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

| Release Date | 2019-11-18 | 2023-09-05 |