AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Radeon RX 7900M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the AMD Radeon RX 7900M. The database lists no shared test scores, no win counts, and no delta percentages for these two specific cards. What exists instead is a one-sided benchmark profile: the RX 7900M has three recorded scores, while the PRO W7400 has none.

The RX 7900M delivers a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4201. That result places it in a context where its aggregate performance reaches the 94th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The PRO W7400, by contrast, sits at the 50th percentile with an average benchmark score of zero, meaning no comparable measurement is available for it.

The RX 7900M also records 129499 in Geekbench OpenCL and 158760 in Geekbench Vulkan. These are substantial compute figures. The OpenCL score indicates strong general-purpose throughput, while the Vulkan score suggests robust graphics API performance under that framework. Without a corresponding PRO W7400 score, the database cannot produce a relative delta between the two.

What the data does permit is a comparison of the RX 7900M against its nearest rivals, which helps calibrate how the mobile card behaves in the broader field. The RX 7900M averages 97487 across its benchmarks. The AMD Radeon Pro VII scores 97131, a 0.4% difference in favor of the 7900M. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 scores 101872, putting the 7900M 4.3% behind. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 scores 92466, leaving the 7900M 5.4% ahead. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 scores 91671, which the 7900M leads by 6.3%.

These deltas show the RX 7900M competing in the upper professional tier. It trails the Quadro RTX 6000 by a narrow margin, leads the Pro VII by a hair, and beats both the Instinct MI60 and RTX A4500 by noticeable percentages. The PRO W7400, lacking any benchmark entries, cannot be positioned on this scale.

The absence of head-to-head data is itself informative. The PRO W7400 is a single-slot, 55 W workstation card aimed at a different segment, while the RX 7900M is a 180 W mobile part. Their performance profiles likely diverge sharply, but the database does not currently hold the measurements to quantify that gap in any test.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX 7900M have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: Yes. The database lists three scores for the RX 7900M: 4201 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 129499 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 158760 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score is 97487.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each card?

A: The RX 7900M ranks at the 94th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The PRO W7400 ranks at the 50th percentile.

Q: How does the RX 7900M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 7900M scores 0.4% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro VII, 4.3% lower than the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000, 5.4% higher than the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60, and 6.3% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A4500.

Q: Does the PRO W7400 have any benchmark scores?

A: No. The PRO W7400 has an empty benchmark list and an average benchmark score of zero in the database.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 7900M has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP values for the two cards?

A: The PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W. The RX 7900M has a TDP of 180 W.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7900M wins in every category where the database holds a measurement. Its 38.52 TFLOPS of FP32 performance dwarfs the 7.885 TFLOPS of the PRO W7400. Its FP16 output reaches 77.05 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the PRO W7400 manages 7.885 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The RX 7900M also delivers higher pixel and texture rates: 401.3 GPixel/s and 601.9 GTexel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s and 123.2 GTexel/s for the PRO W7400.

The RX 7900M carries 4608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, 192 ROPs, and 72 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. Every compute resource is larger on the mobile part.

Memory favors the RX 7900M as well. Its 16 GB frame buffer is double the 8 GB of the PRO W7400. Bandwidth runs at 576.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s, a factor of over three. The memory clock is also higher: 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective on the RX 7900M, compared to 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective on the PRO W7400.

The PRO W7400 does hold advantages in specific physical and power characteristics. It is a single-slot card with a 55 W TDP, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The RX 7900M is an IGP with a 180 W TDP, no suggested PSU listed, and display outputs described as portable device dependent. For a compact workstation or a system with strict power limits, the PRO W7400 is the more manageable installation. For raw compute throughput, the RX 7900M is the clear winner in every recorded metric.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every hardware field. The PRO W7400 uses a 6 nm process node, while the RX 7900M uses a 5 nm node. Both come from TSMC. Transistor counts diverge sharply: 13,300 million on the PRO W7400 versus 57,700 million on the RX 7900M. Die size measures 204 mm² for the PRO W7400 and 529 mm² for the RX 7900M. Transistor density runs 65.2M per mm² on the PRO W7400 and 109.1M per mm² on the RX 7900M.

Clock speeds show a different pattern. The PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The RX 7900M has a base clock of 1825 MHz and a boost clock of 2090 MHz. The RX 7900M runs far higher at both points.

Memory differs in size, bus width, and bandwidth, as covered above. The PRO W7400 uses a 128-bit bus with 8 GB; the RX 7900M uses a 256-bit bus with 16 GB.

The bus interface also differs. The PRO W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX 7900M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The PRO W7400 has a length of 168 mm, a height of 69 mm, and a width of 20 mm. The RX 7900M has no recorded dimensions.

The PRO W7400 has a release date of 2025-08-02, while the RX 7900M was released on 2023-10-18. The PRO W7400 lists a predecessor of Radeon Pro Vega; the RX 7900M lists Polaris Mobile as its predecessor. Neither card has a successor listed. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the RDNA 3.0 architecture, but they are built on different chips and codenames. The PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with the codename Hotpink Bonefish, and it belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation, specifically the Navi III Series. The RX 7900M uses the Navi 31 chip with the codename Plum Bonito, and it belongs to the Navi Mobile generation under the RX 7000M series label.

The chip-level differences are substantial. Navi 31 on the RX 7900M carries 57,700 million transistors across a 529 mm² die, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. Navi 33 on the PRO W7400 carries 13,300 million transistors across a 204 mm² die, built on TSMC's 6 nm process. The RX 7900M chip is physically larger, denser, and more complex.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The RX 7900M has 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 192 ROPs, and 72 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. Neither card has tensor cores listed.

API support is identical: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FP16 ratio differs, with the RX 7900M running at 2:1 versus the PRO W7400's 1:1, which reflects a different execution arrangement for half-precision workloads.

Physical form factors diverge as well. The PRO W7400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The RX 7900M is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. Display output configurations differ: the PRO W7400 provides four DisplayPort 2.1 connections, while the RX 7900M depends on the portable device it is integrated into.

The Verdict

The RX 7900M is the stronger performer by every measurement in the database. Its benchmark scores place it at the 94th percentile, and its nearest rivals confirm it operates in the upper tier of professional GPUs. It leads the AMD Radeon Pro VII by 0.4%, trails the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 by 4.3%, and beats the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 by 5.4% and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 by 6.3%. Its FP32 throughput of 38.52 TFLOPS, 16 GB memory capacity, and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth give it a commanding lead over the PRO W7400 in raw compute and graphics workloads.

The PRO W7400, with no recorded benchmarks, cannot claim any measured performance win. Its advantages are physical and operational: a 55 W TDP, single-slot footprint, no power connectors, and four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. It also has a more recent release date of 2025-08-02 compared to the RX 7900M's 2023-10-18.

The data points to a clear split. A system requiring maximum compute power, large memory capacity, and high bandwidth should use the RX 7900M. A system constrained by power draw, chassis space, or display output requirements should use the PRO W7400. The RX 7900M dominates the performance categories; the PRO W7400 dominates the installation and efficiency categories. Without head-to-head benchmark results, the database cannot produce a single winner across both, but the recorded scores leave no doubt about which card delivers more raw performance.