AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Radeon RX 6450M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two AMD GPUs into clearly different roles. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a desktop workstation part built around the Navi 33 chip, while the AMD Radeon RX 6450M is a mobile graphics processor using the Navi 24 chip. Neither part has recorded benchmark scores in the database, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, so the comparison rests on architectural and specification differences rather than measured performance deltas.

The Radeon PRO W7400 wins on raw compute resources. It carries 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. That is more than double the shading units of the RX 6450M, which has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The W7400 also has 28 ray tracing cores, compared to 12 on the RX 6450M. For any workload that scales with shader count or ray tracing hardware, the W7400 is the stronger part on paper.

The RX 6450M wins on clock speed. Its base clock is 2000 MHz, its game clock is 2220 MHz, and its boost clock reaches 2460 MHz. The W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. That gap is substantial, but the W7400 compensates with a larger chip and more execution units. The RX 6450M also has a higher memory clock at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) on the W7400, though the W7400 has a wider memory bus.

For pixel throughput, the RX 6450M is slightly ahead with 78.72 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s on the W7400. Texture throughput is nearly identical: the W7400 posts 123.2 GTexel/s and the RX 6450M posts 118.1 GTexel/s. The W7400 takes a clear lead in FP32 compute at 7.885 TFLOPS, while the RX 6450M delivers 3.779 TFLOPS. In FP16, the W7400 matches its FP32 rate at 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1), whereas the RX 6450M reaches 7.557 TFLOPS (2:1), a smaller gap.

The RX 6450M is a mobile part with no dimensions recorded and a slot width of IGP, meaning it is integrated into a portable device. The W7400 is a single-slot desktop card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The RX 6450M has no suggested PSU rating, while the W7400 lists a 250 W suggested PSU. The RX 6450M is the more power-efficient part per clock, but the W7400 offers more absolute compute capability.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different RDNA generations. The Radeon PRO W7400 uses RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on the Navi 33 chip with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The Radeon RX 6450M uses RDNA 2.0 architecture on the Navi 24 chip and belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation. Both are manufactured by AMD at TSMC on a 6 nm process node.

The W7400 has a much larger physical implementation. Its die size is 204 mm² with 13,300 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². The RX 6450M has a 107 mm² die with 5,400 million transistors and a density of 50.5 million per mm². The W7400 nearly doubles the transistor count and die area, which explains its higher shading unit count and larger memory bus.

The memory subsystems differ in both capacity and bandwidth. The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6450M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s. The W7400 provides double the memory capacity and about 35% more bandwidth. The RX 6450M uses a faster effective memory speed of 16 Gbps versus 10.8 Gbps on the W7400, but the W7400's wider bus overcomes that speed disadvantage.

The bus interfaces also differ. The W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX 6450M uses PCIe 4.0 x4. The W7400 offers twice the PCIe lane count, which matters for data transfer between the GPU and host system in workstation workloads. The RX 6450M is a mobile IGP part, so its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent", whereas the W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

FP16 execution differs between the two architectures. The W7400 achieves 7.885 TFLOPS in FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it does not double-rate FP16. The RX 6450M achieves 7.557 TFLOPS in FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it processes two FP16 operations per FP32 operation. Despite the RX 6450M's double-rate FP16, the W7400 still posts a higher FP16 figure due to its larger shader array.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs. Both have empty benchmark arrays, and the wins count is zero for each side. The percentile ranking for both is 50, indicating they sit at the midpoint of all GPUs in the database, but no average benchmark score is available for either part.

Without measured performance numbers, the comparison must rely on computational rates and architectural specifications. The largest single-number advantage belongs to the W7400 in FP32 compute. At 7.885 TFLOPS, it delivers more than double the RX 6450M's 3.779 TFLOPS. That advantage is approximately 2.09x, a substantial margin for any compute workload that uses FP32 arithmetic. The W7400 also leads in shading units (1792 vs 768, a 2.33x ratio), TMUs (112 vs 48, a 2.33x ratio), ROPs (64 vs 32, a 2x ratio), and ray tracing cores (28 vs 12, a 2.33x ratio).

The RX 6450M holds advantages in clock speeds and pixel fill rate. Its boost clock of 2460 MHz is 2.24x higher than the W7400's 1100 MHz boost. Its base clock of 2000 MHz is 6.06x higher than the W7400's 330 MHz base clock. The RX 6450M also posts a higher pixel rate at 78.72 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s, a 1.12x advantage. In texture rate, the two are close: 123.2 GTexel/s for the W7400 versus 118.1 GTexel/s for the RX 6450M, a 1.04x lead for the W7400.

Memory bandwidth favors the W7400 at 172.8 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s, a 1.35x advantage. The RX 6450M counters with a faster effective memory speed of 16 Gbps versus 10.8 Gbps, but the W7400's 128-bit bus versus 64-bit bus is the deciding factor. In FP16, the W7400 leads at 7.885 TFLOPS versus 7.557 TFLOPS, a narrow 1.04x margin that narrows the RX 6450M's architectural double-rate advantage.

The RX 6450M has a lower TDP at 50 W versus 55 W for the W7400, a 10% difference. Both use no external power connectors. The W7400 lists a 250 W suggested PSU, while the RX 6450M has no suggested PSU because it is an IGP part that draws power from the portable device.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification field. The W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the RX 6450M uses the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture. The W7400 has a codename (Hotpink Bonefish); the RX 6450M does not. The W7400 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation, and the RX 6450M belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation.

Transistor counts differ by a factor of 2.46: the W7400 has 13,300 million transistors versus 5,400 million on the RX 6450M. Die size is 204 mm² versus 107 mm², a 1.91x difference. Transistor density is 65.2M per mm² versus 50.5M per mm². The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 4 GB on the RX 6450M. Memory bus width is 128 bit versus 64 bit. Bandwidth is 172.8 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s.

Clock specifications show the RX 6450M with higher frequencies across the board: base 2000 MHz versus 330 MHz, boost 2460 MHz versus 1100 MHz, and a game clock of 2220 MHz that the W7400 does not list. Memory clock is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective).

Shading units are 1792 versus 768, TMUs are 112 versus 48, ROPs are 64 versus 32, and ray tracing cores are 28 versus 12. Pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s versus 78.72 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s versus 118.1 GTexel/s. FP32 is 7.885 TFLOPS versus 3.779 TFLOPS. FP16 is 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 7.557 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP is 55 W versus 50 W. The W7400 is a single-slot card; the RX 6450M is an IGP. The W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8; the RX 6450M uses PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.1 versus Portable Device Dependent. The W7400 has dimensions (168 mm length, 69 mm height, 20 mm width); the RX 6450M has no recorded dimensions. The W7400 has a 250 W suggested PSU; the RX 6450M does not. Release dates differ: the W7400 is dated 2025-08-02, and the RX 6450M is dated 2023-01-03. Predecessors are Radeon Pro Vega for the W7400 and Polaris Mobile for the RX 6450M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units, while the AMD Radeon RX 6450M has 768 shading units.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The W7400 delivers 172.8 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6. The RX 6450M delivers 128.0 GB/s over a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 6450M has a boost clock of 2460 MHz. The W7400 has a boost clock of 1100 MHz.

Q: How does FP32 compute compare?

A: The W7400 achieves 7.885 TFLOPS in FP32. The RX 6450M achieves 3.779 TFLOPS, which is less than half the W7400's figure.

Q: Are both GPUs built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both use a 6 nm process node from TSMC. The W7400 uses RDNA 3.0 architecture, and the RX 6450M uses RDNA 2.0 architecture.

Q: What is the TDP of each GPU?

A: The W7400 has a TDP of 55 W. The RX 6450M has a TDP of 50 W. Neither uses external power connectors.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear split between desktop workstation capability and mobile integration. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the stronger compute part by a wide margin in FP32, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, ray tracing cores, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. It is a single-slot desktop card with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, suited for workstation environments that need higher compute throughput and larger framebuffers.

The AMD Radeon RX 6450M is a mobile IGP with no recorded dimensions, no standalone display outputs, and a PCIe 4.0 x4 interface. It uses a smaller chip with fewer transistors, half the memory capacity, and half the memory bus width. Its advantages are limited to higher clock speeds, a slightly higher pixel rate, and a 5 W lower TDP. The RX 6450M also has a game clock of 2220 MHz, a specification the W7400 does not list, and it achieves nearly the same FP16 throughput at 7.557 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS due to its 2:1 FP16 ratio.

For users selecting a GPU based on the recorded database specifications, the W7400 is the appropriate choice for compute-heavy workloads that require FP32 performance, ray tracing resources, or more than 4 GB of video memory. The RX 6450M is appropriate for portable devices where the IGP form factor, lower power draw, and higher clocks are the defining constraints. The W7400's transistor count of 13,300 million versus 5,400 million, and its die size of 204 mm² versus 107 mm², indicate a fundamentally larger and more capable processor. The RX 6450M's release date of 2023-01-03 predates the W7400's 2025-08-02, but both remain in active production. No benchmark scores exist in the database to quantify real-world performance, so the verdict rests on the architectural and specification advantages documented above.