AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs AMD Radeon RX 7700S Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 and AMD Radeon RX 7700S are two very different GPUs, one a low-power desktop workstation card and the other a high-performance mobile part, and the benchmark data reflects a split decision. The RX 7700S wins decisively in OpenCL compute workloads, while the PRO W6400 takes the Vulkan performance crown in the available head-to-head tests. The average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story: the PRO W6400 posts an average score of 37157, which places it at the 80th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 7700S, despite its raw power in one test, averages 33849 and sits at the 78th percentile. This inversion is driven by the fact that the RX 7700S has a weaker Vulkan result that drags down its overall average, making the choice between these two entirely dependent on the target application.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic margin in the entire comparison belongs to the AMD Radeon RX 7700S in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the RX 7700S scores 62983 against the PRO W6400’s 35027, a massive 44.4% advantage for the mobile GPU. This is not a marginal win; it is a near-doubling of compute throughput, reflecting the fundamental hardware disparity between the two cards. The RX 7700S has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units, versus the PRO W6400’s 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. In raw FP32 throughput, the RX 7700S delivers 20.48 TFLOPS compared to the PRO W6400’s 3.565 TFLOPS, which explains the OpenCL gap almost entirely. For any workload that leverages OpenCL — such as GPU-accelerated rendering, physics simulation, or general compute kernels — the RX 7700S is in a different league, and the data leaves no doubt about the winner.

However, the Vulkan head-to-head reverses the outcome, and this is where the PRO W6400 shows its strength. In Geekbench Vulkan, the PRO W6400 scores 39286, beating the RX 7700S’s 36380 by 8%. This is a significant upset, considering the RX 7700S has roughly 2.7 times the shading units and 2.7 times the FP32 throughput. The Vulkan result suggests that the PRO W6400’s architecture, clocks, or driver optimizations are better suited to the specific workload patterns of this test. The PRO W6400 also has a higher base clock at 2039 MHz versus 1500 MHz, though the RX 7700S boosts higher at 2500 MHz versus 2321 MHz. The 8% delta in Vulkan indicates that raw compute resources do not always translate to real-world API performance, and the PRO W6400’s desktop-oriented design may offer lower latency or better scheduling in this scenario. It is a reminder that benchmark suites measure specific code paths, and the PRO W6400’s RDNA 2.0 architecture, while older, is not without merit.

The wins are split exactly one apiece, but the magnitude of the RX 7700S’s OpenCL victory dwarfs the PRO W6400’s Vulkan edge. A 44.4% delta is a dominant result, whereas an 8% delta is a modest but clear win. When looking at the average benchmark scores, the PRO W6400’s 37157 average is higher than the RX 7700S’s 33849, which seems to contradict the OpenCL result. This is because the RX 7700S has a third benchmark — 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 — where it scores 2185, but this score is not included in the head-to-head comparison. The PRO W6400’s two scores are both relatively high, while the RX 7700S’s Vulkan score is comparatively low, pulling its average down. The percentile rankings reflect this: PRO W6400 at 80th percentile versus RX 7700S at 78th, a narrow gap that masks the extreme variance in the RX 7700S’s results.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7700S is the clear choice for OpenCL-based compute workloads. Its 62983 OpenCL score is not just ahead of the PRO W6400; it is also far above the nearest rivals listed for the PRO W6400, which include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 at 37648 and the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 at 37507. The RX 7700S’s OpenCL output is nearly 70% higher than those cards, indicating that its 2048 shading units and 20.48 TFLOPS FP32 throughput are put to excellent use in this API. Applications like video encoding, data processing, or any CUDA-competitive OpenCL workload would benefit enormously from the RX 7700S. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth also provides double the capacity and more than double the bandwidth of the PRO W6400’s 4 GB and 128.0 GB/s, which is critical for large datasets.

The PRO W6400 wins in Vulkan, where its 39286 score beats the RX 7700S by 8%. This makes it the better option for Vulkan-based games or applications, despite its much smaller hardware footprint. The PRO W6400’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X at 36530 and the NVIDIA Tesla P4 at 37628, and the PRO W6400 beats all of them in its average score. Its 12 ray tracing cores, while fewer than the RX 7700S’s 32, are sufficient for entry-level RT workloads in Vulkan. The PRO W6400 also draws only 50 W TDP versus the RX 7700S’s 100 W, making it an extremely power-efficient option for Vulkan-specific tasks in a desktop workstation. For users who prioritize Vulkan performance and power efficiency over raw compute, the PRO W6400 is the data-backed winner.

Beyond these two benchmarks, the RX 7700S’s 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2185 indicates it has a dedicated DX12 performance profile that the PRO W6400 lacks in the provided data. This suggests the RX 7700S is better suited for modern gaming workloads that use DX12, as it has a specific result in that test. The PRO W6400 has no DX12 benchmark listed, so its DX12 performance is unknown from this data. The RX 7700S’s higher pixel rate of 160.0 GPixel/s and texture rate of 320.0 GTexel/s, compared to the PRO W6400’s 74.27 GPixel/s and 111.4 GTexel/s, further support its dominance in rasterization-heavy tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and silicon. The PRO W6400 uses the Navi 24 chip based on RDNA 2.0, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC with 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die. The RX 7700S uses the Navi 33 chip based on RDNA 3.0, also on a 6 nm TSMC process, but packs 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. This is a 2.46x increase in transistor count and a 1.91x increase in die size, resulting in a higher transistor density of 65.2M per mm² for the RX 7700S versus 50.5M per mm² for the PRO W6400. The RDNA 3.0 architecture introduces significant improvements over RDNA 2.0, including a redesigned compute unit layout that doubles the FP32 throughput per CU, which is evident in the FP32 numbers: 20.48 TFLOPS for the RX 7700S versus 3.565 TFLOPS for the PRO W6400.

Memory architecture also differs substantially. The PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 2000 MHz memory clock (16 Gbps effective), yielding 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 7700S doubles capacity to 8 GB, doubles the bus width to 128-bit, and increases the memory clock to 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), producing 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 7700S’s memory subsystem is not just larger but also more efficient, critical for higher-resolution textures and larger compute buffers. The PRO W6400’s 64-bit bus is a major limitation for bandwidth-hungry tasks, while the RX 7700S’s 128-bit bus is a more balanced design.

The RX 7700S also has a significantly larger execution resource pool: 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, versus the PRO W6400’s 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Ray tracing cores are also more numerous on the RX 7700S, with 32 RT cores versus 12 on the PRO W6400. The RX 7700S’s game clock is listed at 2200 MHz, while the PRO W6400 has no game clock specified. The RX 7700S’s base clock is lower at 1500 MHz, but its boost clock of 2500 MHz is higher than the PRO W6400’s 2321 MHz. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical, but the underlying hardware capabilities are vastly different.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: choose the RX 7700S for any workload that stresses OpenCL compute, DX12 gaming, or high-resolution texture processing. Its 44.4% lead in OpenCL and its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score, combined with double the memory and 2.25x the bandwidth, make it the superior all-round performer for modern applications. The RX 7700S also has a higher FP32 throughput of 20.48 TFLOPS, which is 5.7x the PRO W6400’s 3.565 TFLOPS, and its 32 RT cores offer more future-proofing for ray-traced content. The RX 7700S is active in production, while the PRO W6400 is end-of-life, meaning the former is a safer long-term investment.

Choose the PRO W6400 if Vulkan performance is your primary metric, or if power consumption is a hard constraint. Its 8% Vulkan win over the RX 7700S is real, and its 50 W TDP is half of the RX 7700S’s 100 W, making it ideal for compact, low-power workstations. The PRO W6400’s average benchmark score of 37157 is also higher than the RX 7700S’s 33849, and it ranks at the 80th percentile versus the 78th, so in aggregate it is the more consistent performer. Its single-slot design and lack of power connectors make it easy to integrate, whereas the RX 7700S is an IGP for portable devices, which limits its desktop applicability. For Vulkan-specific applications, the PRO W6400 is the data-backed choice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6400 has an average benchmark score of 37157, while the AMD Radeon RX 7700S averages 33849, a difference of about 9.8% in favor of the PRO W6400.

Q: How much faster is the RX 7700S in OpenCL?

A: The RX 7700S scores 62983 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 44.4% higher than the PRO W6400’s 35027, making it the dominant performer in this API.

Q: Does the PRO W6400 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the PRO W6400 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 39286, beating the RX 7700S’s 36380 by 8%.

Q: What are the memory capacities of these two GPUs?

A: The PRO W6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the RX 7700S has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, with the RX 7700S also having a 128-bit bus versus the PRO W6400’s 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RX 7700S has 32 ray tracing cores, while the PRO W6400 has 12, giving the RX 7700S a 2.67x advantage in this area.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The PRO W6400 has a TDP of 50 W, while the RX 7700S has a TDP of 100 W, making the PRO W6400 significantly more power-efficient.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W6400 | AMD Radeon RX 7700S |

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

| Chip | Navi 24 | Navi 33 |

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 5,400 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 107 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 50.5M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2039 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2321 MHz | 2500 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 48 | 128 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 12 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 74.27 GPixel/s | 160.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 111.4 GTexel/s | 320.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.565 TFLOPS | 20.48 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) | 40.96 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Release Date | 2022-01-18 | 2023-01-03 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Polaris Mobile |