AMD Radeon Pro W5700X vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 and AMD Radeon Pro W5700X are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they target entirely different eras and use cases. The RTX 4090 is a 2022 flagship built on Ada Lovelace, while the W5700X is a 2019 workstation part for Apple MPX systems. The benchmark data shows a massive performance gulf, but the W5700X holds its own in specific professional contexts. This analysis walks through the head-to-head results, specification gaps, and architectural differences to determine where each card remains relevant.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two cards is limited to two shared tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The results are decisively one-sided. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 scores 255,416, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X scores 43,810. That is a delta of 483%, meaning the RTX 4090 delivers nearly five times the raw compute performance in this cross-platform API. The gap in Geekbench Vulkan is even starker: the RTX 4090 posts 271,631 against the W5700X’s 45,246, a 500.3% advantage. These are not marginal wins; they represent a generational leap in throughput that the W5700X cannot bridge.

The RTX 4090’s broader benchmark suite reinforces its dominance. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 60,347, while the W5700X averages 54,828. However, the W5700X’s percentile ranking (87th vs. 88th for the RTX 4090) is surprisingly close, which reflects the fact that the W5700X’s only available benchmarks are Geekbench variants, while the RTX 4090 includes many lower-scoring Passmark tests. The RTX 4090’s best single result is the Geekbench Vulkan score of 271,631; its worst is Passmark DirectX 12 at 150. The W5700X’s only other benchmark is Geekbench Metal, where it scores 75,427 — a result the RTX 4090 cannot produce because it lacks Metal support in this dataset.

The head-to-head table shows the RTX 4090 winning both shared tests, giving it a 2–0 record. The W5700X’s only “win” is the absence of a shared test where it could compete. For context, the RTX 4090’s nearest rivals by average score include the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, 0% delta) and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60,140, 0.3% delta). The W5700X’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 (54,247, 1.1% delta) and RTX 4080 SUPER (54,209, 1.1% delta). This places the W5700X in the same performance tier as the RTX 4080 series, not the RTX 4090.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 has an average benchmark score of 60,347, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X’s 54,828. That is a 5,519-point difference in favor of the RTX 4090.

Q: In which API does the RTX 4090 show its largest lead over the W5700X?

A: The largest lead is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RTX 4090 scores 271,631 versus 45,246, a 500.3% delta. The Geekbench OpenCL lead is 483% (255,416 vs. 43,810).

Q: Does the W5700X have any benchmark where it outperforms the RTX 4090?

A: No. In the two shared tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), the RTX 4090 wins both. The W5700X does have a Geekbench Metal score of 75,427, but the RTX 4090 has no Metal result in this dataset, so no direct comparison exists.

Q: How do the two cards rank against all other GPUs?

A: The RTX 4090 is in the 88th percentile, while the W5700X is in the 87th percentile. Despite the large performance gap in shared tests, their overall percentile rankings are nearly identical.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card based on average score?

A: For the RTX 4090, the nearest rival is the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, 0% delta), followed by the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60,140, 0.3% delta). For the W5700X, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 (54,247, 1.1% delta) and RTX 4080 SUPER (54,209, 1.1% delta).

Q: Which card has more wins in the head-to-head benchmark table?

A: The RTX 4090 has 2 wins (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan) out of 2 shared tests. The W5700X has 0 wins.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4090 wins every shared benchmark category by overwhelming margins. In raw compute, the data shows a 483% lead in OpenCL and a 500.3% lead in Vulkan. The RTX 4090 also produces higher scores in its exclusive tests: Passmark G3D (38,194), Passmark GPU Compute (26,613), and Geekbench OpenCL (255,416). For any workload that relies on general-purpose compute, DX12, or Vulkan, the RTX 4090 is the clear choice. Its pixel rate is 443.5 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 1,290.2 GTexel/s, which are more than triple the W5700X’s 130.6 GPixel/s and 326.4 GTexel/s.

The W5700X’s only unique strength is Metal. Its Geekbench Metal score of 75,427 is the only benchmark where it posts a result that the RTX 4090 cannot match, simply because the RTX 4090 lacks a Metal score in this dataset. The W5700X also has a lower power draw (205 W vs. 450 W) and a quad-slot design, which suggests it is built for passive cooling in Apple Mac Pro environments rather than high-performance gaming or rendering. The RTX 4090’s triple-slot design and 16-pin power connector indicate a card designed for maximum output, not efficiency.

For professional workflows that are Metal-optimized on macOS, the W5700X offers a functional path. For everything else — Windows, Linux, or any cross-platform compute — the RTX 4090’s benchmark results are categorically superior. The W5700X’s nearest rivals (RTX 4080 and RTX 4080 SUPER) show that it competes with the previous generation’s high-end, not the current flagship.

Specification Differences

The specification gap is as wide as the benchmark gap. The RTX 4090 uses 24 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.01 TB/s of bandwidth. The W5700X has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 2.25x difference in memory capacity and a 2.25x difference in bandwidth. The RTX 4090’s boost clock is 2520 MHz, while the W5700X’s boost clock is 2040 MHz. Base clocks are 2235 MHz versus 1243 MHz.

The RTX 4090 has 16,384 shading units, 512 TMUs, and 176 ROPs. The W5700X has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The FP32 compute is 82.58 TFLOPS for the RTX 4090 versus 10.44 TFLOPS for the W5700X. The RTX 4090’s FP16 is 82.58 TFLOPS (1:1), while the W5700X’s FP16 is 20.89 TFLOPS (2:1). Power consumption is 450 W for the RTX 4090 and 205 W for the W5700X. The RTX 4090 uses a 16-pin connector and requires an 850 W PSU; the W5700X has no listed power connector and requires a 550 W PSU.

The bus interfaces differ entirely: the RTX 4090 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the W5700X uses Apple MPX. Display outputs are also distinct: the RTX 4090 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the W5700X has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt. The RTX 4090’s dimensions are 304 mm in length, 137 mm in height, and 61 mm in width. The W5700X is 305 mm in length, with no height or width listed. The launch MSRP for the RTX 4090 is 1,599 USD; the W5700X launched at 999 USD.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 4090 is built on the AD102 chip using the Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 125.3M per mm². The W5700X uses the Navi 10 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture, on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, for a density of 41.0M per mm². The RTX 4090 has 128 ray-tracing cores and 512 tensor cores; the W5700X has neither, as these features are not listed.

The RTX 4090 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the W5700X supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX 4090’s memory clock is 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective), compared to the W5700X’s 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The RTX 4090’s FP32 and FP16 are identical at 82.58 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio; the W5700X’s FP16 is double its FP32, showing a 2:1 ratio, which is typical for RDNA 1.0.

The RTX 4090’s generation is GeForce 40, with a predecessor of GeForce 30 and a successor of GeForce 50. The W5700X’s generation is Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Series), with no predecessor or successor listed. The RTX 4090 was released on 2022-09-19, while the W5700X was released on 2019-12-10, a gap of nearly three years. The process node difference (5 nm vs. 7 nm) and transistor density (125.3M vs. 41.0M per mm²) explain the RTX 4090’s enormous compute advantage.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for raw performance: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is in a different league. Its 483% lead in OpenCL and 500.3% lead in Vulkan, combined with 8x the FP32 throughput (82.58 vs. 10.44 TFLOPS) and 2.25x the memory bandwidth, make it the only choice for compute-heavy, cross-platform workloads. The RTX 4090’s 88th percentile ranking and its nearest rivals (Intel Arc Pro A60, AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48) show it sits at the top of the performance stack, even if its average score is dragged down by low Passmark DX9/DX10 results.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X is a different kind of product. Its 87th percentile ranking and nearest rivals (RTX 4080, RTX 4080 SUPER) place it in the high-end tier of 2023, not the flagship tier. Its 10.44 TFLOPS FP32 and 448 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for professional visualization on macOS, especially where Metal is the primary API — its Metal score of 75,427 is its only standout result. The W5700X’s 205 W TDP and Apple MPX interface make it suitable for Mac Pro chassis, where power and space are constrained. Its quad-slot design suggests passive cooling, which is incompatible with gaming or high-performance rendering.

Who should pick which? If the workload requires Windows, Linux, or any API beyond Metal, the RTX 4090 is the only rational option based on benchmark results. If the system is an Apple Mac Pro and the software is Metal-optimized, the W5700X offers a competent, lower-power alternative that avoids the RTX 4090’s 450 W draw and 16-pin connector. But for any shared benchmark, the RTX 4090 wins by a factor of five or more. The W5700X’s 999 USD launch MSRP is lower than the RTX 4090’s 1,599 USD, but the performance difference justifies the premium only for users who need the absolute maximum compute. For everyone else, the W5700X’s niche is narrow: macOS-only, Metal-centric workflows where its efficiency and form factor matter more than raw numbers.