AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7800 Comparison

AMD Radeon PRO W7800 and AMD Radeon PRO W6800 are both 32 GB professional workstation cards built by AMD, but they represent different generations of the Radeon Pro Navi lineup. The W7800 is the newer, active product, while the W6800 is end-of-life. Benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the W7800 winning both head-to-head tests decisively, yet the architecture and feature differences mean the choice isn't purely about raw speed for every workload.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 wins every benchmark where both cards have comparable data. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the W7800 scores 154,366 against the W6800's 121,808, a 26.7% advantage. The gap widens dramatically in Geekbench Vulkan, where the W7800 hits 175,422 versus 109,961 for the W6800, a 59.5% lead. This indicates the W7800's advantage is especially pronounced in compute APIs that leverage its newer architecture more fully.

The W6800's only unique benchmark score is Geekbench Metal, where it posts 174,420. Since the W7800 has no Metal score listed, this doesn't represent a direct win, but it does suggest the W6800 remains a viable option for macOS-centric workflows that rely on Metal performance. For OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the W7800 is the clear winner. The data shows the W7800 also holds a higher overall average benchmark score of 164,894 compared to the W6800's 135,396, placing the newer card at the 97th percentile of all GPUs versus the 96th percentile for the older one.

Architecture Differences

The W7800 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 31 chip (codename Plum Bonito), produced on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The W6800 uses RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 21 chip on a 7 nm process. This process shrink allows the W7800 to pack 57,700 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The W6800, despite a similar 520 mm² die size, contains only 26,800 million transistors at a density of 51.5M per mm². The W7800 essentially doubles the transistor count in the same physical footprint.

The W7800 features 4,480 shading units, 280 texture mapping units, 128 ROPs, and 70 ray tracing cores. The W6800 has fewer of each: 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 60 RT cores. Clock speeds also favor the newer card, with the W7800 boosting to 2525 MHz versus 2322 MHz for the W6800, and a base clock of 1895 MHz against 1575 MHz. Memory configuration is identical in capacity and bus width—32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit interface—but the W7800 runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) delivering 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the W6800 runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for 512.0 GB/s.

Display outputs differ significantly. The W7800 offers 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1, supporting the newer standard. The W6800 only has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. Both cards are dual-slot, use PCIe 4.0 x16, and have a suggested PSU of 600 W, but the W7800 requires 2x 8-pin power connectors versus the W6800's 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. The W7800 has a slightly higher TDP of 260 W compared to 250 W. Physical dimensions differ marginally, with the W7800 being longer at 280 mm but shorter and narrower than the W6800.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result shows the W7800 scoring 154,366 against the W6800's 121,808. That 26.7% delta reflects the combined impact of more shading units, higher clocks, and doubled transistor density. In practical terms, this means OpenCL compute tasks like rendering or simulation will complete noticeably faster on the W7800.

Geekbench Vulkan is where the W7800 truly separates itself. Its score of 175,422 dwarfs the W6800's 109,961, a 59.5% margin. This nearly 60% advantage in Vulkan suggests the RDNA 3.0 architecture extracts far more performance from the modern graphics API. For applications that have moved to Vulkan for compute or rendering, this is a massive upgrade. The W7800's Vulkan score also exceeds its own OpenCL score, while the W6800's Vulkan score is lower than its OpenCL score, indicating the older card is less optimized for Vulkan workloads.

Looking at broader context, the W7800's average benchmark score of 164,894 places it just 0.2% behind the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (165,217) and 0.7% behind the RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094). It is 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (162,504). The W6800's average of 135,396 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA A10M (135,230, delta 0.1%) and RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218, delta 0.1%). This shows the W7800 competes with higher-tier NVIDIA workstation GPUs, while the W6800 sits at a lower performance tier.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 if your work relies on Vulkan or OpenCL compute. The data shows a 59.5% Vulkan advantage and a 26.7% OpenCL advantage over the W6800. The W7800 also offers newer DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and is an active product with ongoing availability. Its higher transistor density and 5 nm process make it the more future-proof option for demanding professional workloads.

Choose the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 only if you specifically need Metal performance, where it scores 174,420, or if you require six mini-DisplayPort outputs for a multi-monitor setup. The W6800 is end-of-life, so availability may be limited. Its lower average benchmark score of 135,396 versus 164,894 and its position at the 96th percentile versus the 97th percentile for the W7800 make it the weaker choice for raw compute. The performance gap is substantial enough that the W7800 is the better investment for any Vulkan-centric application pipeline.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 delivers 576.0 GB/s, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 provides 512.0 GB/s. Both use 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: How much faster is the W7800 in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The W7800 scores 175,422 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 59.5% higher than the W6800's score of 109,961.

Q: Are both cards the same physical size?

A: No. The W7800 is longer at 280 mm but narrower at 40 mm wide and 110 mm tall. The W6800 is shorter at 267 mm but wider at 50 mm and taller at 120 mm.

Q: What display outputs does each card offer?

A: The W7800 has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The W6800 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Q: Which card has more ray tracing cores?

A: The W7800 has 70 ray tracing cores, while the W6800 has 60.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: Both have a suggested PSU of 600 W. The W7800 uses 2x 8-pin power connectors and has a TDP of 260 W. The W6800 uses 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin and has a TDP of 250 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7800 | AMD Radeon PRO W6800 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 57,700 million | 26,800 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 520 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 109.1M / mm² | 51.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1895 MHz | 1575 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2525 MHz | 2322 MHz |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4480 | 3840 |

| TMUs | 280 | 240 |

| ROPs | 128 | 96 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 70 | 60 |

| Pixel Rate | 323.2 GPixel/s | 222.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 707.0 GTexel/s | 557.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 45.25 TFLOPS | 17.83 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) | 35.67 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 260 W | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | 280 mm x 110 mm x 40 mm | 267 mm x 120 mm x 50 mm |

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

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | 2,249 USD |