AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Radeon RX 7600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a decisive performance gap between these two Navi 33 based GPUs, with the Radeon RX 7600M holding a commanding lead in every measurable category. The most significant difference appears in raw compute throughput: the RX 7600M delivers 17.27 TFLOPS FP32 versus the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS, a 2.19x advantage. This disparity stems from clock speeds, as both cards share identical core configurations.

The boost clock difference is stark. The RX 7600M boosts to 2410 MHz, while the W7400 reaches only 1100 MHz. Even the RX 7600M's base clock of 1500 MHz exceeds the W7400's boost clock by 400 MHz. This clock advantage translates directly to pixel and texture throughput. The RX 7600M achieves 154.2 GPixel/s and 269.9 GTexel/s, while the W7400 manages 70.40 GPixel/s and 123.2 GTexel/s respectively. In both cases, the mobile part nearly doubles the workstation card's output.

Memory performance follows the same pattern. The RX 7600M offers 256.0 GB/s bandwidth compared to the W7400's 172.8 GB/s, a 48% improvement. Memory clock rates explain the gap: the RX 7600M runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, while the W7400 operates at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective. Both cards use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus, so the entire bandwidth difference comes from memory clock speed.

The FP16 comparison shows an additional architectural distinction. The RX 7600M achieves 34.55 TFLOPS FP16 via a 2:1 ratio, while the W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. This means the RX 7600M processes FP16 workloads at twice its FP32 rate, whereas the W7400 processes both at identical rates. For applications leveraging FP16 acceleration, the mobile GPU holds a 4.38x advantage.

The only benchmark score recorded in the database comes from Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 7600M scores 63775. This places it at the 89th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP at 63830 (-0.1% delta), NVIDIA CMP 30HX at 63842 (-0.1% delta), AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 at 63693 (+0.1% delta), and AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 at 64212 (-0.7% delta). The RX 7600M sits within 0.7% of all four rivals, indicating tight competition at this performance tier. The W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores and no nearest rivals, leaving its competitive positioning undefined in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7600M wins in every computational category recorded. For gaming and general 3D rendering workloads, its 17.27 TFLOPS FP32 and 154.2 GPixel/s pixel rate provide substantially higher throughput. The 2:1 FP16 ratio also gives it a clear edge in machine learning inference and other mixed-precision workloads that benefit from reduced precision arithmetic.

The W7400's advantages are not computational but physical and operational. Its 55 W TDP is significantly lower than the RX 7600M's 90 W TDP, making it suitable for power constrained environments. The W7400 uses no power connectors and requires only a 250 W suggested PSU, whereas the RX 7600M's suggested PSU is not recorded. The W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, enabling installation in compact chassis. The RX 7600M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with dimensions dependent on the portable device, so it cannot be installed in a desktop at all.

Display connectivity also favors the W7400 for workstation use. It provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the RX 7600M's display outputs are portable device dependent. For multi-monitor professional setups, the W7400 offers a fixed, predictable configuration. The RX 7600M relies on the host laptop's display outputs, which may vary by manufacturer.

The RX 7600M uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, double the W7400's PCIe 4.0 x8. This wider bus provides more headroom for data transfer between GPU and host system, though the practical impact depends on workload memory access patterns.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture. They use the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture and the codename Hotpink Bonefish. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 6 nm process node with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². Core configurations are identical: 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. Neither GPU has tensor cores.

The architectural differences manifest in clock behavior and FP16 support. The W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and boost clock of 1100 MHz, with no recorded game clock. The RX 7600M has a base clock of 1500 MHz, boost clock of 2410 MHz, and a game clock of 2070 MHz. The game clock represents typical sustained performance during gaming workloads, a figure absent for the W7400.

FP16 execution differs between the two. The W7400 runs FP16 at 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, meaning it uses the same hardware paths for both precisions. The RX 7600M achieves 34.55 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, indicating dedicated hardware that processes two FP16 operations per FP32 operation. This is a meaningful architectural distinction for workloads that can exploit FP16 throughput.

Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The production status for both is Active. The W7400's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, while the RX 7600M's predecessor is the Polaris Mobile. Neither has a recorded successor.

The release dates differ substantially. The W7400 launched on 2025-08-02, while the RX 7600M launched on 2023-01-03. This 31 month gap explains the architectural maturity differences despite the shared Navi 33 chip. The W7400 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation, while the RX 7600M belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) series.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600M delivers 17.27 TFLOPS FP32 versus the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS, more than double the FP32 throughput. In FP16, the RX 7600M achieves 34.55 TFLOPS compared to the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same chip?

A: Yes, both use the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture and the codename Hotpink Bonefish. They share identical transistor counts (13,300 million), die size (204 mm²), and core configurations (1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 28 RT cores).

Q: What explains the large performance difference?

A: Clock speeds differ dramatically. The RX 7600M has a boost clock of 2410 MHz and base clock of 1500 MHz, while the W7400 has a boost clock of 1100 MHz and base clock of 330 MHz. The RX 7600M also runs memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus the W7400's 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective).

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a 55 W TDP, while the AMD Radeon RX 7600M has a 90 W TDP. The W7400 requires no power connectors and suggests a 250 W PSU, whereas the RX 7600M's PSU requirement is not recorded.

Q: Can the RX 7600M be installed in a desktop workstation?

A: No. The RX 7600M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) designed for portable devices, with dimensions and display outputs dependent on the host device. The W7400 is a single-slot card with fixed dimensions of 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width.

Q: How does the RX 7600M compare to its nearest rivals in benchmark scores?

A: The RX 7600M scores 63775 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it at the 89th percentile. It trails the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP by 0.1%, the NVIDIA CMP 30HX by 0.1%, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 by 0.7%, while leading the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 by 0.1%.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Base clock: W7400 at 330 MHz, RX 7600M at 1500 MHz
• Boost clock: W7400 at 1100 MHz, RX 7600M at 2410 MHz
• Game clock: W7400 has none recorded, RX 7600M at 2070 MHz
• Memory clock: W7400 at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), RX 7600M at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective)
• Memory bandwidth: W7400 at 172.8 GB/s, RX 7600M at 256.0 GB/s
• Pixel rate: W7400 at 70.40 GPixel/s, RX 7600M at 154.2 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: W7400 at 123.2 GTexel/s, RX 7600M at 269.9 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: W7400 at 7.885 TFLOPS, RX 7600M at 17.27 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: W7400 at 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1), RX 7600M at 34.55 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: W7400 at 55 W, RX 7600M at 90 W
• Slot width: W7400 is single-slot, RX 7600M is IGP
• Suggested PSU: W7400 at 250 W, RX 7600M has none recorded
• Bus interface: W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, RX 7600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display outputs: W7400 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1, RX 7600M is portable device dependent
• Dimensions: W7400 measures 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm, RX 7600M has no recorded dimensions
• Series: W7400 has no series, RX 7600M belongs to the Radeon RX 7000 series
• Generation: W7400 is Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series), RX 7600M is Navi Mobile (RX 7000M)
• Release date: W7400 on 2025-08-02, RX 7600M on 2023-01-03
• Predecessor: W7400 succeeds Radeon Pro Vega, RX 7600M succeeds Polaris Mobile
• Percentile: W7400 at 50th percentile with no benchmark scores, RX 7600M at 89th percentile with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 63775

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on form factor and workload requirements. The AMD Radeon RX 7600M is the superior performer in every recorded computational metric, offering more than double the FP32 throughput, nearly double the pixel rate, and 48% more memory bandwidth than the W7400. Its 89th percentile ranking and tight competition with the RX 9060 XT LP, CMP 30HX, Pro Vega 56, and Pro WX 9100 confirm it sits in a strong performance tier.

However, the RX 7600M is an IGP designed for portable devices. It cannot be installed in a desktop workstation, has no fixed display outputs, and offers no physical dimensions for chassis planning. Its 90 W TDP also demands more power than the W7400's 55 W.

The W7400 is a conventional single-slot desktop card with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, a 250 W suggested PSU, and fixed dimensions. Its lower clock speeds and reduced FP16 capability make it substantially slower, but its power efficiency and physical design suit professional workstation environments where multiple displays and compact installation matter more than peak compute.

Users requiring maximum performance in a portable system should select the RX 7600M. Users building a desktop workstation with multi-monitor output requirements and modest power budgets should select the W7400, accepting its lower computational throughput. The 50th percentile placement for the W7400 reflects its mid-pack positioning, while the RX 7600M's 89th percentile demonstrates top-tier standing among all recorded GPUs.