AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What architecture do the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and W7600 share?

A: Both cards use the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. They are manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The W7400 delivers 172.8 GB/s with 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the W7600 provides 288.0 GB/s with the same 8 GB capacity and bus width. The W7600's memory clock runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) on the W7400.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking of each card in the database?

A: The W7400 sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 0. The W7600 ranks at the 93rd percentile with an average benchmark score of 87,108.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 throughput?

A: The W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is roughly 2.5 times the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. The W7600 also reaches 39.98 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the W7400 is limited to 7.885 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1).

Q: What are their power requirements?

A: The W7400 has a TDP of 55 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The W7600 has a TDP of 130 W, requires one 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU.

Q: Do both cards support the same display outputs and APIs?

A: Yes, both offer 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and share identical API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The two cards share the same fundamental silicon: Navi 33 on RDNA 3.0, fabricated by TSMC at 6 nm. Both pack 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The architectural lineage is identical, but the implementation differs in several key respects.

The W7400 is configured with 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The W7600 scales these up to 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. That is a 14.3% increase in shading units, the same 14.3% increase in TMUs, and a 14.3% increase in ray tracing cores. ROP count remains unchanged at 64.

Clock behavior separates the two more dramatically. The W7400 runs at a 330 MHz base clock and 1100 MHz boost, which is a modest operating range. The W7600 boosts to 2440 MHz with a 1720 MHz base clock. This clock delta, combined with the larger shader array, explains why the W7600 reaches 19.99 TFLOPS FP32 versus 7.885 TFLOPS on the W7400. The FP16 ratio also differs: the W7400 computes FP16 at 1:1 with FP32, while the W7600 uses a 2:1 ratio, doubling FP16 throughput to 39.98 TFLOPS.

Memory architecture is similar in capacity and bus width, but not in speed. Both use 8 GB GDDR6 across a 128-bit interface. The W7400's memory runs at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective transfer, yielding 172.8 GB/s. The W7600's memory operates at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective transfer, yielding 288.0 GB/s. That is a 66.7% bandwidth advantage for the W7600.

Power delivery and physical design also diverge. The W7400 is a 55 W card with no auxiliary power connectors, a 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width. The W7600 draws 130 W, requires a single 6-pin connector, and measures 241 mm in length and 115 mm in height. Both are single-slot designs. The W7400's suggested PSU is 250 W; the W7600's is 300 W.

The release timeline differs as well. The W7600 launched on 2023-08-02 with a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The W7400 is listed with a release date of 2025-08-02 and no launch MSRP in the database. Both remain in active production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two cards. However, the W7600 has recorded benchmark results in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, while the W7400 has no benchmark scores listed. The W7600 scores 81,528 in Geekbench OpenCL and 92,688 in Geekbench Vulkan, for an average benchmark score of 87,108 across all tests.

The W7400's average benchmark score is recorded as 0 with no individual test results. This makes a direct numerical comparison impossible from the recorded data. The percentile rankings tell the story clearly though: the W7400 sits at the 50th percentile while the W7600 sits at the 93rd percentile.

The W7600's nearest rivals in the database provide context for its standing. The NVIDIA Quadro GP100 averages 87,445, which is 0.4% above the W7600. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX averages 85,637, putting the W7600 1.7% ahead. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile averages 91,134, which is 4.4% above the W7600, and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 averages 91,671, 5% above the W7600. These deltas place the W7600 in a competitive band around the Quadro GP100 and CMP 40HX, while trailing the RTX A4500 variants by a moderate margin.

Given the W7400's lack of recorded benchmarks, the performance relationship to the W7600 must be inferred from specification differences. The W7600's clock advantage is substantial: 2440 MHz boost versus 1100 MHz boost, a 2.2x difference. The W7400's lower shading unit count further widens the gap in raw throughput. The texture rate difference is stark: 312.3 GTexel/s on the W7600 versus 123.2 GTexel/s on the W7400. Pixel rate follows the same pattern: 156.2 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s.

The Verdict

The database records a clear stratification between these two professional GPUs, though the absence of W7400 benchmark scores limits direct evidence. The W7600's 93rd percentile ranking and 87,108 average score demonstrate a high-performing card in the database's overall distribution. The W7400's 50th percentile ranking with no recorded benchmarks places it in the median range, but the specification sheet suggests it is a much lower-throughput part.

The W7600 is the appropriate choice for workloads that demand high FP32 compute, high texture throughput, and fast memory bandwidth. Its 19.99 TFLOPS FP32, 312.3 GTexel/s, and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth support heavy rendering and compute tasks. Its 2:1 FP16 ratio also gives it a significant edge in half-precision workloads, reaching 39.98 TFLOPS.

The W7400 serves a different role. Its 55 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and compact 168 mm length indicate a low-power, space-constrained deployment. The 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth are modest figures, but the card consumes less than half the power of the W7600 and requires no auxiliary power. The 1:1 FP16 ratio means half-precision workloads gain no throughput advantage over FP32.

The recorded data does not support a single universal recommendation. The W7600 is the stronger compute performer by every measured specification, and its benchmark results confirm solid standing against comparable professional GPUs. The W7400 is the lower-power option with a smaller physical footprint and a later release date. Users with workloads that fit within the W7400's 55 W envelope may find it sufficient, while those needing maximum throughput should select the W7600.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Radeon PRO W7400 | Radeon PRO W7600 |

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

| Base clock | 330 MHz | 1720 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1100 MHz | 2440 MHz |

| Memory clock | 1350 MHz, 10.8 Gbps effective | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective |

| Memory bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1792 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 112 | 128 |

| RT cores | 28 | 32 |

| Pixel rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 156.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 123.2 GTexel/s | 312.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.885 TFLOPS | 19.99 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) | 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 130 W |

| Power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | 115 mm (4.5 inches) |

| Width | 20 mm (0.8 inches) | Not recorded |

| Release date | 2025-08-02 | 2023-08-02 |

Shared specifications include: Navi 33 chip, RDNA 3.0 architecture, Hotpink Bonefish codename, 6 nm TSMC process, 13,300 million transistors, 204 mm² die size, 65.2M/mm² transistor density, 8 GB GDDR6 memory, 128-bit bus, 64 ROPs, PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, single-slot design, and active production status. Both share the Radeon Pro Vega predecessor.

Where Each One Wins

The W7600 wins in every compute and throughput category recorded in the database. It doubles or more the FP32 throughput, nearly triples texture rate, more than doubles pixel rate, and delivers 66.7% more memory bandwidth. The 2048 shading units and 32 ray tracing cores exceed the W7400's 1792 and 28 respectively. Its 93rd percentile ranking and 87,108 average benchmark score place it far above the W7400's 50th percentile position. Workloads involving heavy FP32 compute, high-resolution texturing, or ray tracing operations benefit from the W7600's larger and faster configuration.

The W7400 wins in power efficiency and physical integration. Its 55 W TDP is less than half the W7600's 130 W, and it requires no power connectors, simplifying installation in systems with limited power delivery. The 168 mm length and 69 mm height make it suitable for compact chassis, whereas the W7600 extends to 241 mm with a 115 mm height. The suggested PSU of 250 W versus 300 W also indicates lower system-level power demands. The later release date of 2025-08-02 suggests a more recent addition to the product line, though the database does not record a successor for either card.

The FP16 behavior favors the W7600 for half-precision workloads, as its 2:1 ratio doubles throughput to 39.98 TFLOPS. The W7400's 1:1 ratio caps FP16 at 7.885 TFLOPS, meaning no advantage for half-precision compute. For applications that rely on FP16 tensor-style operations, the W7600 is the only viable option from this pair.

Neither card shows a win in the head-to-head benchmark category, as no such entries exist in the database. The W7600's recorded Geekbench scores provide the only direct performance evidence, and they confirm a strong position among its nearest rivals. The W7400 has no recorded scores, so its real-world performance cannot be verified from the database, only inferred from its specification sheet.