AMD Radeon Pro W6800X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between these two workstation cards is Geekbench OpenCL, and the data shows a decisive result. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X scores 124,498, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 108,245. That is a 15% advantage for the W6800X. In raw compute terms, this is a substantial margin for a single-generation comparison, and it positions the W6800X as the stronger general-purpose compute card in this specific test.

However, the benchmark picture is incomplete when looking only at the overlap. The W6800X also has a Geekbench Metal score of 196,844, which places it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs. The W7700 has no Metal result but instead offers a Geekbench Vulkan score of 129,706, which contributes to its 95th percentile standing. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the W6800X averages 160,671 across its two tests, while the W7700 averages 118,976 across its two tests. That is a 35% gap in average scores, though the differing test suites make direct comparisons less clean than the OpenCL head-to-head.

Looking at rivals, the W6800X sits within 3.3% of the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (which averages 166,094) and within 2.8% of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (165,217). It trails the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 by 2.6% (164,894) and the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB by just 1.1% (162,504). These are tight margins, meaning the W6800X is competitive with a broad swath of high-end workstation silicon. The W7700, by contrast, leads the NVIDIA GB10 by 1.3% (117,393), the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 1.6% (117,088), the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 4% (114,395), and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 4.4% (113,944). The W7700's rival set is a tier lower, which aligns with its lower absolute scores.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architecture generations. The W6800X is built on RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 21 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. The W7700 uses RDNA 3.0 with the Navi 32 chip (codename "Wheat Nas") on TSMC's 5 nm node. This node shrink is reflected in transistor density: the W6800X packs 26,800 million transistors into a 520 mm² die, yielding 51.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The W7700 fits 28,100 million transistors into a much smaller 346 mm² die, achieving 81.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The W7700 has 4.8% more transistors in a die that is 33% smaller.

Core configurations differ significantly. The W6800X has 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs, alongside 60 ray tracing cores. The W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with 48 ray tracing cores. The W6800X leads in every compute unit count except ROPs, where they tie. Despite having fewer cores, the W7700 achieves higher clock speeds: a 1,900 MHz base and 2,600 MHz boost versus the W6800X's 1,800 MHz base and 2,087 MHz boost. That clock advantage translates directly into raw throughput numbers. The W7700 delivers 31.95 TFLOPS FP32 and 63.90 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the W6800X delivers 16.03 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.06 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The W7700 is roughly 99% faster in FP32 and FP16 peak throughput.

Memory subsystems also diverge. The W6800X has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with 2,000 MHz memory clock and 16 Gbps effective speed, yielding 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus, but with a 2,250 MHz memory clock and 18 Gbps effective speed, achieving 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7700 gives up half the capacity but gains 12.5% more bandwidth. Pixel rates favor the W7700 (249.6 GPixel/s vs 200.4 GPixel/s), while texture rates are nearly identical (499.2 GTexel/s vs 500.9 GTexel/s). Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The W6800X wins in memory capacity and in the OpenCL benchmark. Its 32 GB frame buffer is double the W7700's 16 GB, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures that exceed 16 GB. The OpenCL score advantage of 15% also suggests that for compute workloads using this API, the older RDNA 2 card holds a measurable edge. Its average benchmark score of 160,671 is also far higher than the W7700's 118,976, though this partly reflects the inclusion of a strong Metal result.

The W7700 wins in raw compute throughput, bandwidth, and efficiency. Its FP32 rate of 31.95 TFLOPS is nearly double the W6800X's 16.03 TFLOPS, and its FP16 rate of 63.90 TFLOPS similarly doubles the W6800X's 32.06 TFLOPS. The memory bandwidth advantage (576.0 GB/s vs 512.0 GB/s) aids bandwidth-bound tasks. The W7700 also has a lower TDP of 190 W versus 200 W, a smaller dual-slot footprint versus quad-slot, and a standard PCIe 4.0 x16 interface versus Apple MPX. Its Vulkan score of 129,706 is higher than the W6800X's OpenCL score of 124,498, though those tests are not directly comparable.

For rendering with ray tracing, the W6800X has more RT cores (60 vs 48), but the W7700's higher clocks and newer architecture may compensate. The data does not include a ray tracing benchmark, so this remains speculative. What the data does show is that the W7700 is the higher-throughput card per watt and per unit of silicon area, while the W6800X is the capacity and legacy-compute champion.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X, with an average score of 160,671 across Geekbench Metal and OpenCL, versus the AMD Radeon PRO W7700's 118,976 average across OpenCL and Vulkan.

Q: How much faster is the W6800X in the shared OpenCL test?

A: The W6800X scores 124,498 versus the W7700's 108,245, a 15% advantage for the W6800X.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700, with 576.0 GB/s from 16 Gbps GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, versus the W6800X's 512.0 GB/s from 16 Gbps GDDR6 on the same bus width.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The W7700 achieves 81.2 million transistors per square millimeter on a 5 nm process, while the W6800X achieves 51.5 million per square millimeter on a 7 nm process.

Q: Does the W7700 support more display outputs?

A: Yes, the W7700 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, whereas the W6800X has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 4x Thunderbolt outputs.

Q: Which card has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 boosts to 2,600 MHz, compared to the W6800X's 2,087 MHz boost clock.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split. For users who need maximum memory capacity and strong OpenCL performance, the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X is the choice. Its 32 GB frame buffer is twice the W7700's, and its 15% OpenCL lead is the only head-to-head benchmark result available. Its 97th percentile standing among all GPUs and its near-parity with the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (-1.1%) and AMD Radeon PRO W7800 (-2.6%) show it remains a high-end competitor despite being end-of-life.

For users who prioritize raw compute throughput, the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is the better pick. Its FP32 rate of 31.95 TFLOPS is nearly double the W6800X's 16.03 TFLOPS, and its FP16 rate of 63.90 TFLOPS doubles the W6800X's 32.06 TFLOPS. It also offers higher memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s vs 512.0 GB/s), a lower TDP (190 W vs 200 W), a more compact dual-slot design, and a standard PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. Its Vulkan score of 129,706 is respectable, and its 95th percentile ranking places it above rivals like the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 1.6%.

The verdict hinges on workload. The W6800X is for compute-heavy tasks that fit within OpenCL and require large memory allocations. The W7700 is for modern rendering and compute that can leverage its higher FP32/FH16 throughput and newer architecture. Neither card dominates the other across all metrics; they are specialized for different priorities. The W7700's launch MSRP is 999 USD, while the W6800X's launch MSRP is 2,799 USD, but performance-per-dollar is not analyzed here — the data only supports these positional statements.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro W6800X | AMD Radeon PRO W7700 |

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

| Chip | Navi 21 | Navi 32 |

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 26,800 million | 28,100 million |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 346 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 51.5M / mm² | 81.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1800 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2087 MHz | 2600 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB GDDR6 | 16 GB GDDR6 |

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

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

| Shading Units | 3840 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 240 | 192 |

| ROPs | 96 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 60 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 200.4 GPixel/s | 249.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 500.9 GTexel/s | 499.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 16.03 TFLOPS | 31.95 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 32.06 TFLOPS (2:1) | 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 200 W | 190 W |

| Slot Width | Quad-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Apple MPX | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | Apple MPX | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 4x Thunderbolt | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2021-08-02 | 2023-11-12 |

| Launch MSRP | 2,799 USD | 999 USD |