AMD Radeon Pro W5700 vs AMD Radeon RX 7800M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the AMD Radeon RX 7800M wins 7 of 9 head-to-head comparisons, and its victories are often by dramatic margins. The most lopsided result comes in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 7800M scores 126,668 against the Radeon Pro W5700's 70,706—a staggering 79.1% advantage. That gap indicates a fundamental difference in modern API throughput, not merely a clock-speed edge. Similarly, Geekbench OpenCL shows the RX 7800M at 120,778 versus 74,613, a 61.9% lead, suggesting the newer architecture handles compute workloads with far greater efficiency.

The Passmark suite reinforces this trend. In DirectX 11, the RX 7800M scores 176 versus 104, a 69.2% difference. DirectX 12 shows 89 versus 54, a 64.8% margin. These are not subtle wins; they represent near-generation leaps in the same vendor's product line. The GPU compute test also favors the RX 7800M heavily—9,342 versus 6,495, a 43.8% lead—which aligns with the OpenCL results and points to a consistent compute-oriented advantage.

However, the Radeon Pro W5700 does claim two victories, and one is notable. In Passmark DirectX 9, the older card scores 225 against 174, giving it a 22.7% edge. This is curious: a legacy API where the older RDNA 1.0 part outperforms the RDNA 3.0 chip. The other win is narrow: Passmark G2D shows 899 versus 892, a 0.8% margin that is effectively a statistical tie. For 2D desktop workloads, the two cards are indistinguishable.

The most important overall metric—Passmark G3D—puts the RX 7800M at 17,613 and the W5700 at 14,520, a 21.3% advantage. That is a substantial lead in general 3D rasterization, but it is smaller than the compute or API-specific gaps. This suggests the RX 7800M's superiority grows with workload complexity: bigger leads in Vulkan and OpenCL, smaller but still decisive leads in G3D. The average benchmark score also reflects this: 27,883 for the RX 7800M versus 25,726 for the W5700, a roughly 8% overall difference. Notably, the RX 7800M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 with an average score of 27,839 (0.2% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti at 28,020 (0.5% ahead), placing it in a crowded mid-range performance tier. The W5700, by contrast, sits next to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile at 25,740 (0.1% behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 6700M at 25,633 (0.4% ahead).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras, and the data reflects that clearly. The RX 7800M uses RDNA 3.0 with the Navi 32 chip, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 28,100 million transistors into a 346 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 81.2M per mm². The W5700 uses RDNA 1.0 with the Navi 10 chip, on a 7 nm process, with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die—a density of 41.0M per mm². The RX 7800M's density is nearly double, which explains how it fits 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs into a mobile-class part. The W5700 has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs.

Clock speeds tell an interesting story. The W5700 has a higher base clock at 1,400 MHz versus 1,295 MHz, but the RX 7800M boosts higher: 2,335 MHz versus 1,880 MHz. The RX 7800M also lists a game clock of 2,145 MHz, a metric the W5700 lacks entirely. Memory clocks differ too: the RX 7800M runs at 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) while the W5700 runs at 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Yet the memory buses diverge: the RX 7800M uses a 192-bit bus with 12 GB of GDDR6, while the W5700 uses a 256-bit bus with 8 GB. The result is surprisingly close bandwidth: 432.0 GB/s for the RX 7800M versus 448.0 GB/s for the W5700. The W5700 actually has a slight bandwidth advantage despite its slower memory, because of the wider bus.

The feature set differs meaningfully. The RX 7800M includes 60 ray tracing cores; the W5700 has none listed. The RX 7800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the W5700 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 7800M's FP32 throughput is 35.87 TFLOPS, while the W5700 manages just 8.663 TFLOPS—a 4x difference. Ironically, the W5700 has a FP16 advantage in ratio terms: 17.33 TFLOPS at 2:1, versus the RX 7800M's 35.87 TFLOPS at 1:1. But in absolute terms, the RX 7800M still delivers more than double the FP16 performance.

Power and physical design also separate them. The RX 7800M is rated at 180 W TDP with an IGP slot width and no power connectors, indicating it is designed for mobile integration. The W5700 is a 205 W dual-slot card requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The W5700 measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. The RX 7800M lists no dimensions, consistent with its portable-device-dependent nature.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7800M wins in almost every modern workload category. Its 79.1% Vulkan lead and 61.9% OpenCL lead make it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks, API-modern gaming, and any workload that leverages ray tracing—a feature the W5700 simply lacks. The DirectX 11 and DirectX 12 results (69.2% and 64.8% leads respectively) confirm that the RX 7800M is superior for contemporary gaming APIs. The GPU compute benchmark (43.8% lead) and G3D (21.3% lead) further cement its position for 3D rendering and general-purpose compute. Its higher FP32 throughput (35.87 TFLOPS versus 8.663 TFLOPS) suggests it can handle scientific or AI-style workloads with far greater headroom.

The W5700's wins are narrow and legacy-oriented. Its DirectX 9 victory (22.7% ahead) is its only decisive benchmark win, which matters only for very old applications or specific legacy compatibility scenarios. The G2D result is effectively a tie, so the W5700 offers no meaningful 2D advantage. However, the W5700 does have a wider memory bus (256-bit versus 192-bit) and slightly higher bandwidth (448.0 GB/s versus 432.0 GB/s), which could theoretically help in bandwidth-bound scenarios that the benchmark suite does not capture. Its FP16 ratio of 2:1 versus the RX 7800M's 1:1 might also matter for specific mixed-precision workloads, though the RX 7800M's absolute FP16 output is still higher.

The release timeline matters. The RX 7800M launched in September 2024, while the W5700 launched in November 2019. The W5700 is end-of-life and has a predecessor in the Radeon Pro Vega series; the RX 7800M is active and follows the Polaris Mobile generation. This generational gap explains most of the performance delta—the data shows what happens when a 2024 mobile chip meets a 2019 workstation card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better overall benchmark performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7800M has a higher average benchmark score of 27,883 versus 25,726 for the Radeon Pro W5700, and it wins 7 of 9 head-to-head comparisons.

Q: Is the RX 7800M faster in compute workloads?

A: Yes. The RX 7800M leads by 61.9% in Geekbench OpenCL (120,778 versus 74,613) and by 43.8% in Passmark GPU Compute (9,342 versus 6,495).

Q: Does the W5700 win any benchmark?

A: The W5700 wins Passmark DirectX 9 (225 versus 174, a 22.7% lead) and Passmark G2D (899 versus 892, a 0.8% margin).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The W5700 has slightly higher bandwidth at 448.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the RX 7800M offers 432.0 GB/s over a 192-bit bus. The RX 7800M has more memory (12 GB versus 8 GB).

Q: Does the RX 7800M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 60 ray tracing cores. The W5700 does not list any ray tracing cores.

Q: How do their API support levels compare?

A: The RX 7800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the W5700 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 7800M | AMD Radeon Pro W5700 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

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

| Die Size | 346 mm² | 251 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 1295 MHz | 1400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2335 MHz | 1880 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2145 MHz | N/A |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps) |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 256 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 3840 | 2304 |

| TMUs | 240 | 144 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 60 | N/A |

| Pixel Rate | 224.2 GPixel/s | 120.3 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 560.4 GTexel/s | 270.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 35.87 TFLOPS | 8.663 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 35.87 TFLOPS (1:1) | 17.33 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 180 W | 205 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

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

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

| Release Date | 2024-09-10 | 2019-11-18 |

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 7800M is the superior performer for nearly every modern workload. Its 21.3% lead in Passmark G3D, 61.9% lead in OpenCL, and 79.1% lead in Vulkan leave little room for debate. Anyone prioritizing gaming, compute, or ray tracing should choose the RX 7800M. It also offers more memory (12 GB versus 8 GB) and a more recent architecture with higher transistor density and greater absolute throughput across every measured metric except DirectX 9 and G2D.

The Radeon Pro W5700 retains niche appeal. Its DirectX 9 advantage (22.7%) makes it a candidate for legacy software environments that predate modern API standards. Its slightly higher memory bandwidth (448.0 GB/s versus 432.0 GB/s) and wider 256-bit bus could matter for specific bandwidth-sensitive tasks not captured in the benchmark suite. It also has a higher base clock (1,400 MHz versus 1,295 MHz), though the RX 7800M's boost clock exceeds it by 455 MHz. The W5700's workstation heritage—5x mini-DisplayPort outputs, a 550 W suggested PSU, and dual-slot design—makes it a conventional desktop card, whereas the RX 7800M is an IGP for portable devices.

The verdict hinges on use case. For gamers, content creators, or compute developers in 2024 and beyond, the RX 7800M is the only rational choice. It is faster, more energy-efficient (180 W versus 205 W), and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with ray tracing. For those maintaining legacy DirectX 9 applications or needing a traditional workstation card with multiple display outputs and a fixed form factor, the W5700 remains functional—but the data shows it is outclassed in every modern benchmark category. The RX 7800M's percentile ranking of 73 versus the W5700's 71 further confirms its slight edge in the global GPU landscape. The older card is end-of-life, while the newer one is active and poised to remain relevant. The benchmark results do not merely suggest an upgrade; they demonstrate a generational shift that leaves the W5700 in a legacy-specific corner.