AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Radeon RX 7600 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between the two cards, but only one of them has recorded measurements. The AMD Radeon RX 7600 carries a full benchmark suite with ten recorded tests, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no benchmark entries in the database. This means every measurable performance indicator comes from the RX 7600 side of the comparison.

The RX 7600 shows its strongest showing in compute-oriented workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 88,051 is the single highest recorded figure among its tests, indicating substantial throughput for general-purpose GPU compute tasks. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 34,401 further supports this, showing solid cross-API compute capability. In the Passmark suite, the G3D score of 16,634 represents the card's primary gaming and 3D rendering performance marker, while the GPU compute score of 8,790 confirms respectable parallel processing ability.

For legacy and API-specific workloads, the RX 7600 delivers a mixed profile. The Passmark DirectX 9 score of 226 is the highest among the DirectX tests, followed by DirectX 11 at 172, DirectX 10 at 84, and DirectX 12 at 58. This ordering suggests the card handles older graphics APIs with relatively higher efficiency per frame, though the absolute numbers are not directly comparable across different API generations. The Passmark G2D score of 984 reflects 2D desktop and windowing performance, which is a separate metric from 3D or compute workloads.

The average benchmark score for the RX 7600 is 15,171, placing it at the 57th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals bracket this figure closely: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM scores 15,199, a 0.2% delta in favor of the RTX card; the AMD Radeon 680M scores 15,270, sitting 0.7% above the RX 7600; the AMD Radeon Pro 560X scores 15,082, 0.6% below; and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti scores 15,063, 0.7% below. These narrow margins indicate the RX 7600 sits in a densely packed performance tier where small differences separate adjacent products.

The PRO W7400 has no benchmark scores, no average, no percentile ranking, and no rival comparisons in the database. All performance analysis must therefore derive from its specification sheet rather than measured results. Its architecture shares the same Navi 33 chip and RDNA 3.0 design as the RX 7600, but with reduced execution resources and lower clock speeds, which will be examined in the architecture and head-to-head sections.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the same Navi 33 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter is identical for both. The codename is also the same: Hotpink Bonefish. The architectural foundation is therefore shared completely, with all differences arising from how AMD configures the silicon for each product line.

The RX 7600 belongs to the Radeon RX 7000 series and the Navi III generation, while the PRO W7400 sits in the Radeon Pro Navi generation. This product segmentation explains the different resource allocations. The RX 7600 enables 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The PRO W7400 reduces shading units to 1,792, TMUs to 112, and keeps ROPs at 64. The ray tracing cores similarly differ: 32 on the RX 7600 versus 28 on the PRO W7400.

Clock speeds diverge substantially. The RX 7600 runs a base clock of 1,720 MHz, a boost clock of 2,655 MHz, and a game clock of 2,250 MHz. The PRO W7400 runs a base clock of just 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1,100 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the RX 7600 memory runs at 2,250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective transfer, while the PRO W7400 memory runs at 1,350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but the resulting bandwidth is 288.0 GB/s for the RX 7600 versus 172.8 GB/s for the PRO W7400.

The power envelope tells a clear story. The RX 7600 has a TDP of 165 W, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and recommends a 250 W PSU. The PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W, requires no power connector, and recommends a 250 W PSU. Physical dimensions follow the power difference: the RX 7600 is a dual-slot card measuring 204 mm by 115 mm, while the PRO W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm. The RX 7600 also lists a successor, Navi IV, while the PRO W7400 has none.

Display outputs also differ. The PRO W7400 provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The RX 7600 provides one HDMI 2.1a and three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, with the HDMI port reflecting its consumer orientation. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical.

The release dates are separated by over two years. The RX 7600 launched on 2023-05-24, while the PRO W7400 launched on 2025-08-02. The RX 7600 lists its predecessor as Navi II, and the PRO W7400 lists its predecessor as Radeon Pro Vega.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the PRO W7400 and the RX 7600. The headToHeadBenchmarks field is empty, and the wins counter shows zero for both cards. This absence of direct comparison data means any performance relationship must be inferred from the RX 7600's recorded scores and the PRO W7400's specification differences.

The RX 7600's measured performance provides the only concrete numbers. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2,310 represents a modern DirectX 12 workload. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 88,051 is the strongest compute result, while the Vulkan score of 34,401 shows a different API scaling. The Passmark suite offers five DirectX versions: DirectX 9 at 226, DirectX 11 at 172, DirectX 10 at 84, and DirectX 12 at 58, plus the G3D composite of 16,634 and G2D of 984.

Against its nearest rivals, the RX 7600's average score of 15,171 sits within a 2.1% band. The AMD Radeon 680M leads at 15,270, the RTX 3050 OEM follows at 15,199, the Radeon Pro 560X trails at 15,082, and the GTX 660 Ti comes last at 15,063. The deltas in percentage terms are all under one percent in either direction, confirming that the RX 7600 occupies a tightly contested performance tier.

For the PRO W7400, the lower shading unit count (1,792 versus 2,048), reduced TMU count (112 versus 128), fewer ray tracing cores (28 versus 32), and significantly lower clocks (boost 1,100 MHz versus 2,655 MHz) all point to considerably lower raw throughput. The pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s for the PRO W7400 compare unfavorably with the RX 7600's 169.9 GPixel/s and 339.8 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute of 7.885 TFLOPS for the PRO W7400 is roughly one-third of the RX 7600's 21.75 TFLOPS, and FP16 follows the same 1:1 ratio on both cards.

The memory bandwidth gap is also substantial: 172.8 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s. This affects any bandwidth-bound workload, including high-resolution textures and compute kernels that stream data.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The RX 7600 has 2,048 shading units, while the PRO W7400 has 1,792. Both use the same Navi 33 chip.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 7600 provides 288.0 GB/s from its 18 Gbps effective GDDR6 memory, while the PRO W7400 provides 172.8 GB/s from 10.8 Gbps effective memory. Both cards use 8 GB on a 128-bit bus.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The RX 7600 has a 165 W TDP and requires a single 8-pin power connector, while the PRO W7400 has a 55 W TDP and requires no power connector. Both recommend a 250 W PSU.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The RX 7600 runs a base clock of 1,720 MHz, a game clock of 2,250 MHz, and a boost clock of 2,655 MHz. The PRO W7400 runs a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1,100 MHz.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: Only the RX 7600 has recorded benchmark scores in the database. Its average benchmark score is 15,171, placing it at the 57th percentile. The PRO W7400 has no benchmark entries.

Q: Do the two cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data shows a complete performance measurement gap between the two cards. The RX 7600 has a full benchmark suite with an average score of 15,171 and a 57th percentile ranking. The PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmarks, no average score, and no percentile placement. Any user selecting between these cards must rely on the specification sheet for the PRO W7400 and the measured results for the RX 7600.

For workloads requiring maximum raw compute throughput, the RX 7600 is the clear choice based on the available data. Its FP32 performance of 21.75 TFLOPS, texture rate of 339.8 GTexel/s, and pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s all exceed the PRO W7400's corresponding figures of 7.885 TFLOPS, 123.2 GTexel/s, and 70.40 GPixel/s. The memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s further reinforces this direction.

For workloads prioritizing low power consumption and compact physical footprint, the PRO W7400 holds the advantage. Its 55 W TDP versus 165 W, single-slot versus dual-slot design, and smaller dimensions (168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm versus 204 mm by 115 mm) make it suitable for constrained installations. The lack of a power connector simplifies integration, and the four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs support multi-display professional setups.

The RX 7600's nearest rival data places it in a tight performance band. Its 15,171 average score sits between the Radeon 680M at 15,270 and the Radeon Pro 560X at 15,082, with deltas under one percent in all cases. This indicates that the RX 7600 does not dominate its immediate competitors, but rather trades positions within a narrow range.

The PRO W7400's lower execution resources and clocks suggest it will trail the RX 7600 in most compute and graphics workloads, but the database lacks direct measurements to confirm the magnitude. The architecture is identical, so the difference stems entirely from configuration choices: fewer shading units, TMUs, and ray tracing cores, plus much lower clock speeds and memory bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Series: RX 7600 is in the Radeon RX 7000 series; PRO W7400 has no series listed.
• Generation: RX 7600 is Navi III (RX 7000); PRO W7400 is Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series).
• Base clock: RX 7600 at 1,720 MHz; PRO W7400 at 330 MHz.
• Boost clock: RX 7600 at 2,655 MHz; PRO W7400 at 1,100 MHz.
• Game clock: RX 7600 at 2,250 MHz; PRO W7400 has no game clock listed.
• Memory clock: RX 7600 at 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective); PRO W7400 at 1,350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective).
• Memory bandwidth: RX 7600 at 288.0 GB/s; PRO W7400 at 172.8 GB/s.
• Shading units: RX 7600 at 2,048; PRO W7400 at 1,792.
• TMUs: RX 7600 at 128; PRO W7400 at 112.
• Ray tracing cores: RX 7600 at 32; PRO W7400 at 28.
• Pixel rate: RX 7600 at 169.9 GPixel/s; PRO W7400 at 70.40 GPixel/s.
• Texture rate: RX 7600 at 339.8 GTexel/s; PRO W7400 at 123.2 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: RX 7600 at 21.75 TFLOPS; PRO W7400 at 7.885 TFLOPS.
• FP16 performance: RX 7600 at 21.75 TFLOPS (1:1); PRO W7400 at 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: RX 7600 at 165 W; PRO W7400 at 55 W.
• Slot width: RX 7600 is dual-slot; PRO W7400 is single-slot.
• Power connectors: RX 7600 uses 1x 8-pin; PRO W7400 uses none.
• Suggested PSU: RX 7600 at 450 W; PRO W7400 at 250 W.
• Display outputs: RX 7600 has 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1; PRO W7400 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1.
• Dimensions: RX 7600 at 204 mm by 115 mm; PRO W7400 at 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm.
• Release date: RX 7600 on 2023-05-24; PRO W7400 on 2025-08-02.
• Predecessor: RX 7600 lists Navi II; PRO W7400 lists Radeon Pro Vega.
• Successor: RX 7600 lists Navi IV; PRO W7400 has no successor.
• Launch MSRP: RX 7600 at 269 USD; PRO W7400 has no launch MSRP listed.
• Benchmark scores: RX 7600 has ten recorded tests; PRO W7400 has none.
• Percentile: RX 7600 at 57; PRO W7400 at 50.
• Average benchmark score: RX 7600 at 15,171; PRO W7400 at 0.
• Nearest rivals: RX 7600 lists four rivals; PRO W7400 has none.

The shared specifications include the Navi 33 chip, RDNA 3.0 architecture, Hotpink Bonefish codename, 6 nm process, TSMC foundry, 13,300 million transistors, 204 mm² die size, 65.2M/mm² transistor density, 8 GB GDDR6 memory, 128-bit bus width, 64 ROPs, PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and active production status.