AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7900 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two Radeon PRO cards. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 delivers an average benchmark score of 110,725, while the W7400 has no recorded benchmark entries in the database. This absence of data for the W7400 means the comparison rests entirely on the W7900's measured results and the architectural specifications of both cards.

The W7900's Geekbench OpenCL score of 84,379 and Vulkan score of 137,070 place it in the 94th percentile among all GPUs tracked by the database. The W7400 sits at the 50th percentile, though this figure derives from its specification profile rather than direct testing. The delta between these percentile positions reflects a substantial gulf in compute capability.

The W7900's nearest rivals provide context for its measured performance. It sits 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II, whose average score is 109,617. It trails the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 2.8%, a card scoring 113,944. The W7900 also runs 3.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X, which scores 107,342, and 3.2% behind the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, which scores 114,395. These margins are narrow, indicating the W7900 operates within a competitive band of workstation-class accelerators.

No head-to-head benchmark entries exist between the two cards in this comparison. The wins tally shows zero for each side. The database therefore relies on the W7900's standalone measurements and the W7400's full specification sheet to establish relative positioning.

Where Each One Wins

The W7900 wins in every measurable category where data exists. Its FP32 throughput of 61.32 TFLOPS dwarfs the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS, a difference that translates directly to raw compute workloads. The W7900's FP16 output also reaches 61.32 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, matching its FP32 rate. The W7400's FP16 figure is 7.885 TFLOPS, also at a 1:1 ratio. Both cards use the same RDNA 3.0 architecture, so the ratio behavior is consistent, but the magnitude favors the larger chip.

Pixel processing tells a similar story. The W7900 achieves 479.0 GPixel/s against the W7400's 70.40 GPixel/s. Texture fill rates follow the same pattern: 958.1 GTexel/s for the W7900 versus 123.2 GTexel/s for the W7400. These figures indicate the W7900 handles resolution-heavy and texture-intensive scenes with far greater headroom.

Memory capacity is another decisive win for the W7900. It carries 48 GB of GDDR6 across a 384-bit bus, yielding 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7400 offers 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, producing 172.8 GB/s. The W7900's sixfold memory capacity and fivefold bandwidth advantage suit large dataset workloads, while the W7400's smaller allocation aligns with lighter tasks.

Ray tracing hardware also favors the W7900. It includes 96 RT cores against the W7400's 28. The W7900's shading unit count of 6,144, texture mapping units of 384, and render output units of 192 all exceed the W7400's 1,792 shaders, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs by wide margins.

The W7400 does hold advantages in physical footprint and power draw. Its 55 W TDP is dramatically lower than the W7900's 295 W. The W7400 draws power from the PCIe slot alone, with no auxiliary power connectors, while the W7900 requires two 8-pin connectors. The W7400's single-slot design and 168 mm length allow installation in compact chassis, whereas the W7900 spans three slots and measures 280 mm. The W7400's suggested power supply of 250 W contrasts with the W7900's 600 W recommendation.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the RDNA 3.0 architecture and belong to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The W7900 uses the Navi 31 chip, codenamed Plum Bonito. Both come from AMD and both are fabricated by TSMC, but the process nodes differ. The W7400 uses a 6 nm node, while the W7900 uses a 5 nm node.

Transistor counts reflect the scale difference. The W7400 integrates 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². The W7900 packs 57,700 million transistors onto a 529 mm² die, achieving 109.1 million per mm². The W7900's denser, more advanced process node enables this higher integration.

The W7900's clock behavior differs markedly from the W7400. Its base clock runs at 1760 MHz with a boost of 2495 MHz. The W7400's base clock is 330 MHz with a boost of 1100 MHz. The W7900 also runs its memory at 2250 MHz, translating to 18 Gbps effective, versus the W7400's 1350 MHz at 10.8 Gbps effective.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card lists tensor cores. Display outputs differ: the W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1, while the W7900 provides 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. Both use PCIe 4.0, but the W7400 connects at x8 while the W7900 uses x16.

The W7900 was released on 2025-08-02 in the database's recorded timeline, while the W7400 carries a release date of 2023-05-25. Both remain in active production. Both list the Radeon Pro Vega as their predecessor, and neither has a recorded successor.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every specification field. The W7900's process node is 5 nm versus the W7400's 6 nm. Transistor counts stand at 57,700 million for the W7900 and 13,300 million for the W7400. Die size measures 529 mm² against 204 mm². Transistor density reaches 109.1M per mm² on the W7900 versus 65.2M per mm² on the W7400.

Clock speeds show the W7900's base at 1760 MHz and boost at 2495 MHz. The W7400's base is 330 MHz and boost is 1100 MHz. Memory clocks run at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the W7900 and 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) for the W7400.

Memory capacity is 48 GB on the W7900 versus 8 GB on the W7400. Both use GDDR6, but the bus widths differ: 384 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth measures 864.0 GB/s on the W7900 and 172.8 GB/s on the W7400.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The W7900 has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 192 ROPs, and 96 RT cores. The W7400 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores. Pixel rates are 479.0 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 958.1 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 both measure 61.32 TFLOPS on the W7900 and 7.885 TFLOPS on the W7400.

Power and physical characteristics also differ. The W7900's TDP is 295 W with dual 8-pin connectors and a suggested 600 W power supply. The W7400's TDP is 55 W with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W power supply. Slot widths are triple-slot for the W7900 and single-slot for the W7400. Dimensions: the W7900 runs 280 mm long, 110 mm high, and 51 mm wide. The W7400 runs 168 mm long, 69 mm high, and 20 mm wide.

Bus interfaces differ as well: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the W7900, PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7400. Display outputs: the W7900 has three DisplayPort 2.1 ports plus one mini-DisplayPort 2.1; the W7400 has four DisplayPort 2.1 ports. The W7900 lists a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 has an average benchmark score of 110,725. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: How does the W7900 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W7900 sits 1% above the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (109,617), 3.2% above the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X (107,342), 2.8% below the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944), and 3.2% below the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395).

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The W7900 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use RDNA 3.0 architecture. The W7900 uses the Navi 31 chip, and the W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The W7900 has a 295 W TDP, uses two 8-pin power connectors, and requires a suggested 600 W power supply. The W7400 has a 55 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and requires a suggested 250 W power supply.

Q: Which card has more ray tracing cores?

A: The W7900 has 96 RT cores. The W7400 has 28 RT cores.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear hierarchy. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 is the dominant compute card in this pairing, with 61.32 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, 48 GB of memory, 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and 96 RT cores. Its 94th percentile standing among all tracked GPUs and its near-parity with the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile and Tesla V100 class accelerators confirm its position as a high-end workstation part.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 serves a different role. Its 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 rate, 8 GB memory, and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth place it firmly in a lower performance tier. Its 50th percentile ranking reflects this positioning. The W7400's 55 W TDP, single-slot profile, and 168 mm length make it suitable for systems with tight space and power constraints, but the recorded data offers no benchmark scores to suggest it competes with the W7900 on raw performance.

The W7900's nearest rival comparisons show it performs within 3.2% of several established accelerators. Its 1% lead over the Radeon Pro Vega II and 3.2% lead over the Radeon Pro W6600X demonstrate consistency within AMD's professional lineup. The 2.8% and 3.2% deficits to the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile and Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB indicate the W7900 trades blows with top-tier competition.

The W7400's release date of 2023-05-25 places it earlier in the database timeline than the W7900's 2025-08-02 entry, yet the W7900's newer 5 nm process and larger Navi 31 chip deliver substantially higher specifications across every compute metric. The W7400's 6 nm Navi 33 chip cannot match the transistor count, clock speeds, or memory subsystem of its larger sibling.

Benchmark results indicate the W7900 is the card for workloads that demand maximum compute throughput, large memory allocations, and high bandwidth. The W7400 is the card for installations where physical size and power draw take priority over absolute performance, but the database contains no measurements to validate its real-world speed. The recorded data supports only one conclusion: the W7900 is the superior performer in this comparison, and the W7400 occupies a fundamentally different segment of the market.