AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Radeon RX 7400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains benchmark results for the AMD Radeon RX 7400, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no entries in the current benchmark suite. This asymmetry shapes the entire comparison. The RX 7400 carries an average benchmark score of 2467 across eight tests, placing it in the 17th percentile of all GPUs tracked by the database. The PRO W7400, by contrast, holds a 50th percentile ranking but with no measured scores attached, meaning its position reflects category distribution rather than direct test performance.

The RX 7400's raw results show a clear profile. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it records 1103 points. Passmark's DirectX 11 test yields a score of 97, while DirectX 10 produces 59, DirectX 12 produces 44, and DirectX 9 produces 176. The GPU compute test returns 5152, and the G3D test delivers 11897. The G2D test shows 1209. These numbers indicate a card that handles legacy DirectX 9 workloads substantially better than newer API paths, with the DirectX 9 score more than quadruple the DirectX 12 score.

The nearest rivals in the database provide context for the RX 7400's standing. The AMD Radeon 8040S averages 2440 points, putting it 1.1% ahead of the RX 7400. The NVIDIA GeForce 710M scores 2433, a 1.4% lead. Intel HD Graphics 610 sits at 2425, 1.8% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M closes the group at 2422, leading by 1.9%. The RX 7400 trails all four nearest rivals by narrow margins, with the largest gap being less than two percent. This clustering suggests the RX 7400 occupies a tightly contested performance tier where small score differences separate competitors.

The PRO W7400 has no head-to-head benchmark entries and no wins recorded in either direction. The wins column shows zero for both cards. Without direct test data for the PRO W7400, the comparison relies on architectural specifications and the RX 7400's measured results rather than matched workload performance.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Radeon RX 7400?

A: The RX 7400 records an average benchmark score of 2467 across eight tests, with a percentile rank of 17 among all GPUs in the database.

Q: How does the RX 7400 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7400 trails the AMD Radeon 8040S by 1.1%, the NVIDIA GeForce 710M by 1.4%, the Intel HD Graphics 610 by 1.8%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710M by 1.9% in average benchmark scores.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No, the PRO W7400 has an empty benchmark array with an average benchmark score of zero, despite holding a 50th percentile position among all GPUs.

Q: What are the clock speeds for each card?

A: The PRO W7400 runs at a 330 MHz base clock and 1100 MHz boost clock, while the RX 7400 runs at 1452 MHz base, 2200 MHz game clock, and 2300 MHz boost clock.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The PRO W7400 delivers 172.8 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the RX 7400 delivers 288.0 GB/s from the same memory configuration.

Q: Which card has a higher TDP?

A: The PRO W7400 carries a 55 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the RX 7400 has a 43 W TDP with one 6-pin connector and a suggested 200 W PSU.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split between these two cards. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 is the measured performer. Its benchmark results, while modest relative to the broader GPU population, provide concrete evidence of capability across DirectX 9 through 12, plus compute and 2D workloads. The 11897 G3D score and 5152 GPU compute score indicate a functional entry-level part. Its 16.49 TFLOPS FP32 throughput and 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth give it a substantial raw specification advantage over the PRO W7400.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 offers no benchmark measurements in the database. Its 50th percentile position is unverified by test data. It runs at dramatically lower clocks: 330 MHz base versus 1452 MHz, and 1100 MHz boost versus 2300 MHz. Its FP32 throughput of 7.885 TFLOPS is less than half the RX 7400's 16.49 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth sits at 172.8 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s. Pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s versus 147.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s versus 257.6 GTexel/s.

The RX 7400 wins on every measurable performance specification. The PRO W7400 counters with a larger power envelope of 55 W versus 43 W, a single-slot cooler versus dual-slot, no external power connector, and four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs versus one HDMI 2.1a and three DisplayPort 2.1. The PRO W7400 also carries a shorter board length at 168 mm versus unspecified dimensions for the RX 7400. For users requiring multi-display professional setups from a single slot, the PRO W7400 has structural appeal. For raw compute and graphics throughput, the RX 7400 dominates every recorded metric.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every measurable specification despite sharing the same Navi 33 chip and RDNA 3.0 architecture. The PRO W7400 uses a 330 MHz base clock and 1100 MHz boost clock. The RX 7400 uses a 1452 MHz base clock, 2200 MHz game clock, and 2300 MHz boost clock. Memory clocks differ as well: 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective on the PRO W7400 versus 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective on the RX 7400.

Memory bandwidth follows the clock gap. The PRO W7400 delivers 172.8 GB/s. The RX 7400 delivers 288.0 GB/s. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 across a 128-bit bus. Pixel rate shows 70.40 GPixel/s for the PRO W7400 and 147.2 GPixel/s for the RX 7400. Texture rate shows 123.2 GTexel/s versus 257.6 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 7.885 TFLOPS versus 16.49 TFLOPS. FP16 compute is 7.885 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio on the PRO W7400 versus 32.97 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio on the RX 7400.

Power characteristics invert the performance relationship. The PRO W7400 draws 55 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. The RX 7400 draws 43 W TDP with one 6-pin connector and a suggested 200 W PSU. The PRO W7400 is single-slot, while the RX 7400 is dual-slot. The PRO W7400 measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The RX 7400 has no recorded dimensions.

Display outputs differ: the PRO W7400 provides four DisplayPort 2.1 connectors, while the RX 7400 provides one HDMI 2.1a and three DisplayPort 2.1 connectors. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8 interfaces. Release dates sit five days apart: the PRO W7400 on August 2, 2025, and the RX 7400 on August 7, 2025. The PRO W7400 lists the Radeon Pro Vega as its predecessor, while the RX 7400 lists Navi II as its predecessor and Navi IV as its successor.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the Navi 33 chip, RDNA 3.0 architecture, and the Hotpink Bonefish codename. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The shading unit count is identical at 1792, as are the texture mapping units at 112, the raster operation pipelines at 64, and the ray tracing cores at 28. Neither card includes tensor cores.

The architectural differences appear in clock behavior and compute ratios. The RX 7400 introduces a game clock of 2200 MHz, a specification absent from the PRO W7400. The FP16 ratio shifts from 1:1 on the PRO W7400 to 2:1 on the RX 7400, doubling the FP16 throughput from 7.885 TFLOPS to 32.97 TFLOPS while FP32 only doubles from 7.885 to 16.49 TFLOPS. This indicates the RX 7400 uses a different shader execution path for half-precision workloads.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API surface is identical. The production status differs: the PRO W7400 is listed as active, while the RX 7400 has no recorded production status. The PRO W7400 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation, while the RX 7400 belongs to the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. The Radeon RX 7000 series designation applies only to the RX 7400.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 wins in every directly measurable performance category. Its FP32 throughput of 16.49 TFLOPS more than doubles the PRO W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput of 32.97 TFLOPS quadruples the PRO W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s exceeds the PRO W7400's 172.8 GB/s by roughly two-thirds. Pixel rate of 147.2 GPixel/s doubles the PRO W7400's 70.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate of 257.6 GTexel/s more than doubles the PRO W7400's 123.2 GTexel/s. The RX 7400's benchmark scores, including the 11897 G3D result and 5152 GPU compute result, confirm that the specification advantages translate into measured output.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in physical design and power delivery. Its 55 W TDP exceeds the RX 7400's 43 W TDP, yet it requires no external power connectors, drawing everything from the PCIe slot. The single-slot form factor with a 168 mm length suits dense workstation builds where space is constrained. The four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs provide four simultaneous display connections without needing an HDMI port, whereas the RX 7400 offers only three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs alongside one HDMI 2.1a.

The 50th percentile ranking for the PRO W7400 versus the 17th percentile for the RX 7400 might suggest the PRO card sits higher in the overall GPU distribution, but that ranking lacks supporting benchmark data. The database records zero benchmark scores for the PRO W7400, so its percentile reflects an unmeasured classification rather than observed performance. The RX 7400's 2467 average score places it in the 17th percentile with full measurement support.

For compute-heavy workloads, the RX 7400 is the clear choice based on FP32 and FP16 throughput. For multi-display professional output in a compact single-slot chassis, the PRO W7400 offers structural advantages. The RX 7400 also consumes less power at 43 W versus 55 W, though it requires a 6-pin connector. The PRO W7400's lack of a power connector simplifies installation in systems without spare PCIe power leads. Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP in the database, so price comparison is not possible from the available data.