AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7900D Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D?

A: Both cards use the RDNA 3.0 architecture, but they are built on different chips and process nodes. The W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip on a 6 nm process, while the W7900D uses the Navi 31 chip on a 5 nm process. The W7900D has 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, compared to 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die for the W7400.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare between these two cards?

A: The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7900D has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is exactly five times the memory capacity and five times the memory bandwidth of the W7400.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two cards?

A: The W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, with memory clocked at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The W7900D runs at a base clock of 1327 MHz and a boost clock of 2156 MHz, with memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The W7900D's boost clock is nearly double that of the W7400.

Q: What is the performance difference in raw compute throughput?

A: The W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the W7900D delivers 52.99 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The W7900D offers approximately 6.7 times the FP32 throughput of the W7400. Both cards deliver FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with their FP32 figures.

Q: How do the physical specifications differ?

A: The W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The W7900D is a triple-slot card measuring 280 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 51 mm in width, requiring two 8-pin power connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and AMD Radeon PRO W7900D share the same RDNA 3.0 architecture and belong to the same Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation, but they are fundamentally different implementations. The W7400 is built around the Navi 33 chip, manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm process, while the W7900D uses the Navi 31 chip on TSMC's 5 nm process. This process difference contributes to a significant transistor density gap: the W7900D achieves 109.1M transistors per mm², compared to 65.2M per mm² on the W7400.

The chip codenames also differ, with the W7400 using "Hotpink Bonefish" and the W7900D using "Plum Bonito." Both cards are direct successors to the Radeon Pro Vega, and both remain in active production. The W7400 was released on 2025-08-02, while the W7900D followed on 2025-09-24.

Compute resources scale dramatically between the two. The W7400 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The W7900D has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 192 ROPs, and 96 ray tracing cores. That is approximately 3.4 times the shading units, 3.4 times the TMUs, 3 times the ROPs, and 3.4 times the ray tracing cores.

Neither card includes tensor cores, and both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W7400 offers four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the W7900D provides three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs plus one mini-DisplayPort 2.1 output. The PCIe interface also differs: the W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the W7900D uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The W7900D dominates in every compute and memory metric recorded, and it is the appropriate choice for workloads that demand maximum throughput. The W7400, with its 55 W TDP and single-slot design, serves a different purpose entirely.

For users who need large memory capacity, the W7900D is the only option between these two: it offers 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, which is six times the capacity of the W7400's 8 GB. The W7900D also provides 864.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, five times the W7400's 172.8 GB/s.

The W7400 is suited for environments where physical space and power constraints are primary concerns. It requires no power connectors, draws only 55 W, fits in a single slot, and measures just 168 mm in length. The W7900D, by contrast, is a triple-slot card requiring two 8-pin power connectors, drawing 295 W, and measuring 280 mm in length.

Both cards share the same architecture and API support, so software compatibility is identical. The decision rests on whether the workload requires the W7900D's massive compute and memory resources or whether the W7400's compact, low-power design is sufficient.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show differences across nearly every category. The process node differs: 6 nm for the W7400 versus 5 nm for the W7900D. Transistor count is 13,300 million for the W7400 versus 57,700 million for the W7900D. Die size is 204 mm² versus 529 mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The W7900D has a base clock of 1327 MHz and a boost clock of 2156 MHz. Memory clocks are 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) for the W7400 and 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the W7900D.

Memory capacity is 8 GB versus 48 GB, bus width is 128-bit versus 384-bit, and bandwidth is 172.8 GB/s versus 864.0 GB/s. Shading units are 1,792 versus 6,144, TMUs are 112 versus 384, ROPs are 64 versus 192, and ray tracing cores are 28 versus 96.

Pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s for the W7400 versus 414.0 GPixel/s for the W7900D. Texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s versus 827.9 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 7.885 TFLOPS versus 52.99 TFLOPS, and FP16 compute follows the same 1:1 ratio at 7.885 TFLOPS versus 52.99 TFLOPS.

Power requirements differ significantly: the W7400 has a 55 W TDP with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the W7900D has a 295 W TDP with two 8-pin connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU. Slot width is single-slot for the W7400 and triple-slot for the W7900D. Dimensions are 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm for the W7400 and 280 mm by 110 mm by 51 mm for the W7900D.

The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7400 and PCIe 4.0 x16 for the W7900D. Display outputs are four DisplayPort 2.1 for the W7400 and three DisplayPort 2.1 plus one mini-DisplayPort 2.1 for the W7900D. Both cards share the same DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support, and both have no tensor cores and no launch MSRP recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for this pairing, and neither card has individual benchmark scores or nearest rival entries. However, the recorded specification data provides a basis for comparing their theoretical performance ceilings.

The most significant gap appears in memory bandwidth. The W7900D delivers 864.0 GB/s, which is five times the W7400's 172.8 GB/s. This difference directly impacts memory-intensive workloads such as large dataset processing and high-resolution rendering.

Compute throughput shows an even larger gap. The W7900D's 52.99 TFLOPS FP32 is approximately 6.7 times the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. The same ratio applies to FP16 performance, with both cards offering 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratios.

Texture and pixel throughput follow the expected pattern. The W7900D's 827.9 GTexel/s texture rate is approximately 6.7 times the W7400's 123.2 GTexel/s. The pixel rate gap is 414.0 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s, a factor of approximately 5.9.

Clock speeds show a notable difference in boost behavior. The W7900D boosts to 2156 MHz, while the W7400 boosts to 1100 MHz. The W7900D's base clock of 1327 MHz is higher than the W7400's boost clock.

Memory clock differences compound with the wider bus. The W7900D runs memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) across a 384-bit bus, while the W7400 runs at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus.

Where Each One Wins

The W7900D wins in every performance category recorded in the database. It has higher compute throughput, more memory capacity, more memory bandwidth, higher pixel and texture rates, more shading units, more ray tracing cores, and higher clock speeds.

The W7400 wins in physical and power characteristics. It has a 55 W TDP versus 295 W, requires no power connectors versus two 8-pin connectors, fits in a single slot versus three slots, and measures 168 mm in length versus 280 mm. The W7400's suggested PSU is 250 W, compared to 600 W for the W7900D.

The W7400 also offers one additional DisplayPort 2.1 output (four versus three), though the W7900D adds a mini-DisplayPort 2.1 output that the W7400 does not have.

For workloads that fit within 8 GB of memory and 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, the W7400 delivers those capabilities in a compact, low-power package. For workloads that require 48 GB of memory, 52.99 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, or 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth, the W7900D is the only card between the two that can meet those demands.

The production status of both cards is Active, so both remain available. The release dates show the W7400 arriving on 2025-08-02 and the W7900D on 2025-09-24. Both share the same predecessor, the Radeon Pro Vega, and neither has a recorded successor in the database.