AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7500 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is the clear performance leader across every measurable category. The database records no benchmark wins for the W7400 in any test, while the W7500 dominates all recorded workloads. The W7400 holds advantages only in physical dimensions and power draw, but in raw compute, rendering, and graphics throughput, the W7500 is unequivocally faster.

The W7500's advantage is most pronounced in compute-heavy tasks. Its FP32 throughput of 12.19 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS for the W7400 represents a 54.6% lead in single-precision floating-point performance. For FP16 workloads, the gap widens dramatically: the W7500 delivers 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) while the W7400 manages only 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), making the W7500 more than three times faster in half-precision compute. This makes the W7500 the obvious choice for machine learning inference, scientific simulations, and any workload leveraging FP16 acceleration.

In rasterization-focused tasks, the W7500 also wins decisively. Its pixel rate of 108.8 GPixel/s exceeds the W7400's 70.40 GPixel/s by 54.5%. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 190.4 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, a 54.5% advantage. These figures indicate the W7500 can drive higher resolutions and more detailed scenes with greater efficiency.

The W7400's sole advantages are physical and thermal. It measures 168 mm in length versus the W7500's 216 mm, and its height of 69 mm is dramatically shorter than the W7500's 115 mm. The W7400 also consumes less power at 55 W TDP versus 70 W for the W7500. For compact workstations or constrained chassis, the W7400 offers a smaller footprint, but this comes at a substantial performance cost.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The W7500 delivers 12.19 TFLOPS, which is 54.6% higher than the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS.

Q: Do both cards use the same GPU chip?

A: Yes, both are built on the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture and the Hotpink Bonefish codename.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The W7500 provides 256.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s for the W7400, a 48.1% advantage for the W7500 despite both using 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: How do their physical sizes compare?

A: The W7400 is substantially smaller at 168 mm length and 69 mm height, while the W7500 measures 216 mm length and 115 mm height. Both are single-slot cards with 20 mm width.

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The W7500 scores 68634 in Geekbench Vulkan, while no Vulkan benchmark score is recorded for the W7400 in the database.

Q: Are there differences in display outputs?

A: No, both cards feature 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and use PCIe 4.0 x8 interfaces.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the W7400 and W7500. However, the W7500 has a comprehensive set of standalone benchmark scores that demonstrate its performance tier. Its average benchmark score is 16415, placing it at the 59th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of 0, indicating no measured performance data exists.

The W7500's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its performance level. It scores essentially identically to the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell with a 0% delta, and it sits 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 5600M. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 by only 0.5%. These near-parity results indicate the W7500 competes with high-end consumer and professional cards from both AMD and NVIDIA, despite its modest 70 W TDP.

Breaking down the W7500's individual benchmark results, its strongest showing comes in Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 68634, followed by Geekbench OpenCL at 58213. In Passmark tests, the G3D score of 13368 and GPU compute score of 5910 reflect solid graphics and compute capabilities. Legacy DirectX tests show scores of 200 for DirectX 9, 125 for DirectX 11, 65 for DirectX 10, and 46 for DirectX 12, while the G2D score of 1174 covers 2D acceleration.

The W7400's lack of any benchmark data means its real-world performance cannot be directly quantified from the database. However, its clock speeds tell a clear story: the W7400's boost clock of 1100 MHz is significantly lower than the W7500's 1700 MHz, a 54.5% difference that directly explains the compute and pixel rate gaps. The W7400 also has a much lower base clock at 330 MHz versus 1500 MHz for the W7500.

Specification Differences

The two cards share identical core configurations: both have 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation units, and 28 ray tracing cores. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. The transistor count is the same at 13,300 million on a 204 mm² die with a density of 65.2M per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The W7400 runs at 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost, while the W7500 runs at 1500 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the W7400 operates at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective speed, while the W7500 runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed. This yields memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s for the W7400 versus 256.0 GB/s for the W7500.

Power and physical specifications diverge. The W7400 has a 55 W TDP while the W7500 draws 70 W. Both use no power connectors and recommend a 250 W power supply. Dimensions differ notably: the W7400 is 168 mm long and 69 mm tall, while the W7500 is 216 mm long and 115 mm tall; both are 20 mm wide and single-slot.

The release dates differ by two years: the W7400 launched on 2025-08-02 while the W7500 launched on 2023-08-02. The W7500 has a launch MSRP of 429 USD. The W7400 has no launch MSRP recorded. The W7400 also has lower FP16 throughput at 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) versus the W7500's 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio).

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture: RDNA 3.0 on the Navi 33 chip, manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process. The codename is identical: Hotpink Bonefish. Both belong to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation and share the same predecessor, Radeon Pro Vega. Neither card has a recorded successor.

The architectural difference lies not in the silicon design but in how the chips are configured and clocked. The W7500 enables the full FP16 throughput with a 2:1 ratio, indicating a different shader configuration or driver-level enabling of packed math operations. The W7400 operates at 1:1 FP16 to FP32, which halves its half-precision throughput to match its FP32 figure. This is a critical distinction for compute workloads that leverage FP16.

Memory architecture is identical in width and type but differs in effective speed. Both use 128-bit GDDR6, but the W7500's 16 Gbps effective memory clock versus the W7400's 10.8 Gbps results in 48.1% higher bandwidth. This memory speed advantage compounds the compute advantages, giving the W7500 better performance in bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Both cards support the same API set: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display output is also identical with 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for both. The production status for both is Active.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is the superior graphics card in nearly every measurable dimension. Its 54.6% lead in FP32 compute, 54.5% lead in pixel rate, 54.5% lead in texture rate, and 48.1% lead in memory bandwidth make it the clear choice for any performance-oriented application. The W7500's 59th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 16415, places it in competitive territory with high-end cards like the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell and GeForce RTX 5090 D V2.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 offers no performance advantages whatsoever according to the recorded data. Its only benefits are physical: a shorter 168 mm length, a lower 69 mm height, and a 55 W TDP that is 15 W lower than the W7500's 70 W. For workstation builds with severe space constraints or power limits, the W7400 may fit where the W7500 cannot.

For users who prioritize compute performance, particularly FP16 workloads, the W7500's 24.37 TFLOPS versus the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS is a decisive factor. The W7500 also offers higher memory bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s, which benefits large datasets and texture-heavy scenes. Its launch MSRP of 429 USD provides a reference point for its positioning, though the W7400's lack of a recorded MSRP prevents direct price comparison.

The W7500's benchmark scores confirm its capabilities: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 68634 and OpenCL score of 58213 demonstrate strong cross-API performance. Passmark G3D of 13368 and GPU compute of 5910 reinforce its versatility. The W7400 has no such data, leaving its performance unverified in the database.

Ultimately, the W7500 is the recommended choice for any application where performance matters. The W7400 serves a narrow niche of space-constrained or power-limited builds, but the performance gap is too large to ignore for general professional graphics work. The data is unambiguous: the W7500 wins on every benchmark, every compute metric, and every memory specification.