AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Radeon RX 6550S Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the AMD Radeon RX 6550S. Both cards hold a percentile ranking of 50 against all GPUs in the database, and neither card has any recorded average benchmark score. This absence of direct measurement data means any comparison must rely on the architectural and specification differences recorded in the database.

The Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Radeon RX 6550S delivers 4.915 TFLOPS. This represents a 60.4% advantage for the PRO W7400 in single-precision floating-point throughput. The gap narrows when examining FP16 performance, where the PRO W7400 again records 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the RX 6550S reaches 9.830 TFLOPS through a 2:1 ratio. The RX 6550S therefore holds a 24.7% advantage in FP16 compute, a notable inversion driven by its packed math execution path.

Pixel throughput tells a different story. The RX 6550S achieves 76.80 GPixel/s, slightly ahead of the PRO W7400's 70.40 GPixel/s, a 9.1% margin. Texture throughput favors the RX 6550S as well, with 153.6 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, an advantage of 24.7%. These results indicate that the RX 6550S, despite lower raw FP32 compute, processes rasterization and texture work at a higher rate.

The PRO W7400 counters with substantially higher memory bandwidth. Its 172.8 GB/s exceeds the RX 6550S's 128.0 GB/s by 35.0%. This bandwidth advantage could prove decisive in workloads that saturate memory transfer, such as large texture streaming or compute kernels with high data reuse. The PRO W7400 also carries 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, double the 4 GB found on the RX 6550S, which directly affects the maximum working set size for rendering or compute tasks.

Shader resources align with the FP32 gap. The PRO W7400 contains 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The RX 6550S contains 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The PRO W7400 therefore holds a 75.0% advantage in shader count, a 75.0% advantage in TMU count, and a 100.0% advantage in ROP count. Ray tracing hardware follows the same pattern, with 28 RT cores on the PRO W7400 versus 16 on the RX 6550S, a 75.0% advantage.

Clock speeds reverse the resource advantage. The RX 6550S runs at a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with a game clock of 2170 MHz. The PRO W7400 operates at a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The RX 6550S boost clock is 118.2% higher than the PRO W7400's boost clock. This clock disparity explains how the smaller RX 6550S can achieve comparable or superior pixel and texture rates despite having fewer execution units.

Memory clocks differ as well. The PRO W7400 memory runs at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective data rate, while the RX 6550S memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective. The RX 6550S memory clock is 48.1% higher, though the PRO W7400's wider 128-bit bus compensates with higher total bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W7400 wins in scenarios that demand large memory capacity and high bandwidth. Its 8 GB frame buffer enables handling of large textures, complex scenes, or multi-application workflows that would exceed the 4 GB capacity of the RX 6550S. The 172.8 GB/s bandwidth provides headroom for data-intensive compute, including scientific visualization, machine learning inference, or video processing pipelines that move large buffers through memory. The 1792 shading units and 28 RT cores provide substantial raw compute throughput for FP32 workloads and ray-traced rendering.

The Radeon RX 6550S wins in scenarios that favor clock speed and power efficiency. Its 2400 MHz boost clock and 2170 MHz game clock deliver high per-clock performance, which benefits latency-sensitive workloads and applications that do not scale perfectly with core count. The FP16 advantage of 9.830 TFLOPS makes it suitable for workloads that exploit packed math, including some machine learning inference and image processing tasks. The 76.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 153.6 GTexel/s texture rate indicate strong fill-rate performance for rasterization-heavy tasks, despite the smaller memory bus.

The RX 6550S also holds an advantage in physical footprint. Its IGP slot width and portable-device-dependent display outputs position it for compact or mobile implementations, whereas the PRO W7400 is a single-slot card with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The RX 6550S consumes 50 W TDP, slightly lower than the PRO W7400's 55 W TDP, a 10.0% reduction. Neither card requires external power connectors.

The PRO W7400's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface provides double the lane width of the RX 6550S's PCIe 4.0 x4 interface. This difference affects bandwidth between the GPU and host system, with the PRO W7400 capable of transferring data over eight lanes versus four lanes on the RX 6550S. For workloads that stream data from system memory or storage, this interface advantage may reduce bottlenecks.

Architecture Differences

The PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the RX 6550S uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0. This generational difference introduces several architectural changes. RDNA 3.0 redesigns the compute unit layout, with the PRO W7400's 1792 shading units organized differently than the RX 6550S's 1024 shading units. The FP16 execution ratio differs, with RDNA 3.0 on the PRO W7400 achieving 1:1 FP16 throughput versus RDNA 2.0's 2:1 ratio on the RX 6550S. This means the PRO W7400 dedicates equal hardware to FP16 and FP32, while the RX 6550S achieves higher FP16 throughput through packed operations.

The process node is identical at 6 nm, with both chips fabricated by TSMC. Transistor counts differ significantly: the PRO W7400 contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, while the RX 6550S contains 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die. The PRO W7400 die is 90.7% larger and holds 146.3% more transistors. Transistor density also differs, with the PRO W7400 at 65.2 million transistors per mm² versus the RX 6550S at 50.5 million per mm². The higher density on the PRO W7400 suggests a more compact logic design within RDNA 3.0.

The codename for the PRO W7400 is "Hotpink Bonefish," while the RX 6550S has no recorded codename. The PRO W7400 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation, while the RX 6550S belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation within the Radeon RX 6000 series. This positions the PRO W7400 as a workstation-oriented part and the RX 6550S as a mobile-oriented part.

Ray tracing implementation differs across architectures. The PRO W7400's 28 RT cores represent a newer RDNA 3.0 ray tracing design, while the RX 6550S's 16 RT cores use the RDNA 2.0 approach. The database records no ray tracing performance benchmarks, so direct comparison of ray tracing efficiency is not possible from the available data.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across several recorded specification fields. Memory size differs: 8 GB on the PRO W7400 versus 4 GB on the RX 6550S. Memory bus width differs: 128-bit on the PRO W7400 versus 64-bit on the RX 6550S. Memory bandwidth differs: 172.8 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s. Memory clock differs: 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Shading units differ: 1792 versus 1024. TMUs differ: 112 versus 64. ROPs differ: 64 versus 32. RT cores differ: 28 versus 16. FP32 compute differs: 7.885 TFLOPS versus 4.915 TFLOPS. FP16 compute differs: 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 9.830 TFLOPS (2:1). Pixel rate differs: 70.40 GPixel/s versus 76.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate differs: 123.2 GTexel/s versus 153.6 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds differ across all recorded fields. Base clock: 330 MHz versus 2000 MHz. Boost clock: 1100 MHz versus 2400 MHz. The RX 6550S also records a game clock of 2170 MHz, which the PRO W7400 does not list.

TDP differs: 55 W versus 50 W. Slot width differs: single-slot versus IGP. Suggested PSU differs: 250 W for the PRO W7400, none recorded for the RX 6550S. Bus interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs differ: four DisplayPort 2.1 ports versus portable device dependent outputs.

Dimensions differ: the PRO W7400 measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width; the RX 6550S has no recorded dimensions. Release dates differ: the PRO W7400 released on 2025-08-02 and the RX 6550S released on 2023-01-03. Predecessors differ: the PRO W7400 succeeds the Radeon Pro Vega, while the RX 6550S succeeds Polaris Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, which is 60.4% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6550S's 4.915 TFLOPS.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6550S has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card achieves higher FP16 performance?

A: The RX 6550S achieves 9.830 TFLOPS of FP16 performance through a 2:1 ratio, exceeding the PRO W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: What is the pixel rate difference?

A: The RX 6550S records a pixel rate of 76.80 GPixel/s, which is 9.1% higher than the PRO W7400's 70.40 GPixel/s.

Q: How do the architectures differ?

A: The PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the RX 6550S uses the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture. Both use a 6 nm TSMC process, but the PRO W7400 has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, versus 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die for the RX 6550S.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RX 6550S has a TDP of 50 W with no suggested PSU recorded. Neither card requires power connectors.

Q: Which card has more ray tracing cores?

A: The PRO W7400 includes 28 RT cores, while the RX 6550S includes 16 RT cores, a 75.0% advantage for the PRO W7400.

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 as the stronger candidate for compute-intensive and memory-heavy workloads. Its 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 8 GB memory capacity, 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, and 28 RT cores provide substantial headroom for professional rendering, simulation, and data processing tasks. The 1792 shading units and 112 TMUs supply ample execution resources, and the PCIe 4.0 x8 interface offers higher host bandwidth than the RX 6550S's x4 link.

The AMD Radeon RX 6550S demonstrates strengths in fill-rate and FP16 performance. Its 76.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 153.6 GTexel/s texture rate exceed the PRO W7400's corresponding figures, suggesting efficient rasterization for its resource count. The 9.830 TFLOPS FP16 throughput and 2400 MHz boost clock indicate strong per-clock efficiency, and the 50 W TDP makes it a low-power option for integrated or portable designs.

The absence of recorded benchmark scores means the database cannot confirm real-world performance deltas. The specification analysis shows the PRO W7400 leading in raw FP32 throughput, memory capacity, bandwidth, and execution unit counts, while the RX 6550S leads in clock speed, FP16 throughput, pixel rate, and texture rate. Users requiring maximum FP32 compute, large memory working sets, or high bandwidth should favor the PRO W7400. Users prioritizing FP16 throughput, fill-rate performance, or minimal power draw should consider the RX 6550S. The PRO W7400's workstation-oriented features, including four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and single-slot form factor, contrast with the RX 6550S's mobile-focused IGP design. The data supports the PRO W7400 for professional workloads and the RX 6550S for compact, power-sensitive implementations.