AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7700 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architecture differences between the Radeon PRO W7400 and the Radeon PRO W7700?

A: The W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip on a 5 nm TSMC process. The W7700 has 28,100 million transistors versus 13,300 million on the W7400, and the die size is 346 mm² versus 204 mm².

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The W7700 has 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7400 has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the W7700 and 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) for the W7400.

Q: Which card has more compute units and ray tracing cores?

A: The W7700 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 48 RT cores. The W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores. The W7700’s FP32 throughput is 31.95 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS for the W7400.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each card?

A: The W7700 ranks in the 95th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the W7400 sits at the 50th percentile. The W7700’s average benchmark score is 118,976, while the W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores.

Q: How does the W7700 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W7700 leads the NVIDIA GB10 by 1.3%, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 1.6%, the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 4%, and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 4.4% in average benchmark scores.

Q: What are the physical and power specifications?

A: The W7700 is a dual-slot card with a 190 W TDP, one 8-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 450 W. The W7400 is single-slot with a 55 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Both have 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Architecture Differences

The two cards share the RDNA 3.0 architecture and the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation, but they diverge significantly at the chip level. The W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 5 nm process, yielding 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die. The W7400 uses the smaller Navi 33 chip, built on a 6 nm process, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. Transistor density reflects this: 81.2M per mm² for the W7700 versus 65.2M per mm² for the W7400.

The compute configuration scales accordingly. The W7700 deploys 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 render output units. The W7400 halves many of these counts: 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern, with 48 RT cores on the W7700 and 28 on the W7400. Neither card features tensor cores.

Clock behavior also differs markedly. The W7700 has a base clock of 1900 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz. The W7400’s base clock is 330 MHz with a boost of 1100 MHz. This large frequency gap, combined with the wider compute array, explains the substantial throughput difference. FP32 performance is 31.95 TFLOPS for the W7700 versus 7.885 TFLOPS for the W7400. FP16 performance on the W7700 is 63.90 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, while the W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

Memory architecture reinforces the performance divide. The W7700 uses a 256-bit memory bus with 16 GB of GDDR6, achieving 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7400 uses a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6, providing 172.8 GB/s. The memory clock on the W7700 is 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) on the W7400.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Display outputs are identical at 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The W7700 connects via PCIe 4.0 x16, while the W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The W7700’s codename is “Wheat Nas,” and the W7400’s is “Hotpink Bonefish.” Both list the Radeon Pro Vega as their predecessor, and neither has a listed successor. The W7700 was released in November 2023, while the W7400 arrived in August 2025.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains benchmark results only for the W7700. Its average benchmark score is 118,976, placing it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. The W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile, indicating a wide performance gap.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7700 scores 108,245. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 129,706. These are the only two recorded tests for the W7700. The Vulkan score is 19.8% higher than the OpenCL score, suggesting the card’s compute capabilities are well-served by the Vulkan API in the database’s test suite.

The W7700’s nearest rivals in the database provide context for its standing. It edges out the NVIDIA GB10 by 1.3% (117,393 average score). The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation trails by 1.6% with a score of 117,088. The NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB is 4% behind at 114,395. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile completes the group at 4.4% behind with 113,944.

These margins are narrow against the top two rivals, but the W7700 holds a clear lead over the Tesla V100 and RTX A5500 Mobile. The percentile ranking of 95 indicates the W7700 outperforms the vast majority of GPUs in the database. The W7400’s 50th percentile, by contrast, places it in the middle of the pack, with no benchmark data to confirm its theoretical specifications.

The FP32 throughput difference is stark: 31.95 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS, a factor of roughly 4.05. Texture rate follows at 499.2 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, and pixel rate is 249.6 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s. Bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s. These specification gaps align with the absence of benchmark scores for the W7400; the recorded data simply does not include it.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Radeon PRO W7400 | Radeon PRO W7700 |

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

| Chip | Navi 33 | Navi 32 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 28,100 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 346 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 81.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 330 MHz | 1900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 2600 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 112 | 192 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 28 | 48 |

| Pixel Rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 249.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 123.2 GTexel/s | 499.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.885 TFLOPS | 31.95 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) | 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 190 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 450 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Dimensions (LxHxW) | 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm | 241 mm x 111 mm (width not listed) |

| Release Date | 2025-08-02 | 2023-11-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 999 USD |

| Production Status | Active | Not listed |

The two cards share the same architecture, codename generation, manufacturer, DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan support, and display outputs. The W7700’s launch MSRP is 999 USD, stated once here as recorded. The W7400 has no launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Radeon PRO W7700 as the substantially more capable card. Its 95th percentile ranking, average benchmark score of 118,976, and FP32 throughput of 31.95 TFLOPS place it far above the W7400’s 50th percentile and 7.885 TFLOPS. The W7700 also leads in every measurable compute category: shading units, TMUs, ROPs, RT cores, memory size, bus width, bandwidth, and clock speeds.

The W7400’s advantages are limited to physical footprint and power draw. It is a single-slot card at 55 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The W7700 requires a dual-slot layout, 190 W TDP, one 8-pin connector, and a 450 W PSU. The W7400’s smaller dimensions (168 mm length versus 241 mm) make it easier to fit in constrained chassis, but the W7700 offers nearly four times the FP32 throughput.

The absence of benchmark scores for the W7400 means the database cannot confirm its real-world performance. Its theoretical specifications indicate a mid-range card, consistent with its 50th percentile ranking. The W7700, by contrast, has verified scores that place it ahead of the NVIDIA GB10, RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, and RTX A5500 Mobile.

For users prioritizing compute density, memory bandwidth, or ray tracing resources, the W7700 is the clear choice based on the recorded data. For users with strict power or space constraints, the W7400 offers a lower-power, single-slot alternative, but it sacrifices the majority of compute capabilities. The W7700’s lead in FP32 (31.95 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS) and bandwidth (576.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s) is decisive for heavy workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The W7700 wins in every performance category recorded in the database. Its 16 GB memory capacity and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth support larger datasets and memory-intensive tasks. The 48 RT cores provide more ray tracing throughput than the W7400’s 28. The 3072 shading units and 192 TMUs deliver 499.2 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 123.2 GTexel/s on the W7400. The 249.6 GPixel/s pixel rate on the W7700 nearly quadruples the W7400’s 70.40 GPixel/s.

The W7700’s FP16 performance is particularly notable: 63.90 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio versus 7.885 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. This indicates the W7700 can accelerate FP16 workloads more efficiently, a relevant factor for AI inference or graphics pipelines that use reduced precision. The W7700 also doubles the memory bus width (256 bit versus 128 bit) and uses a faster memory clock (2250 MHz versus 1350 MHz).

The W7400 wins on power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 55 W TDP means it can run without external power connectors, and its suggested PSU of 250 W is far lower than the W7700’s 450 W. The single-slot design at 168 mm length and 20 mm width contrasts with the W7700’s dual-slot 241 mm length. For multi-GPU installations or compact workstation builds, the W7400’s smaller size and lower power draw are practical advantages.

The W7400 also uses the newer process node in terms of release date (August 2025 versus November 2023), but this does not translate into performance gains in the recorded data. The W7700’s 5 nm process yields higher transistor density (81.2M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm²) despite the earlier release.

In summary, the W7700 is the performance leader across all benchmark data, while the W7400 serves as a low-power, space-efficient option. The W7700’s nearest rival comparisons confirm its competitive position, with margins of 1.3% to 4.4% over the listed NVIDIA cards. The W7400’s lack of benchmark scores prevents any direct comparison, but its 50th percentile ranking and specifications indicate a fundamentally different performance class.