AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places these two AMD GPUs in entirely different segments despite sharing the same manufacturer. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a workstation-oriented discrete graphics card built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU is a low-power console-class integrated graphics solution based on RDNA 2.0. Both occupy the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, yet their specifications diverge sharply in compute capability, memory configuration, and power envelope.

The Radeon PRO W7400 delivers substantially higher raw performance metrics across every compute category. Its FP32 throughput of 7.885 TFLOPS dwarfs the Ryzen Z2 A GPU's 1.638 TFLOPS, a difference of roughly 4.8 times. Pixel fill rate favors the W7400 at 70.40 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s, and texture rate reaches 123.2 GTexel/s compared to 51.20 GTexel/s. For users requiring maximum compute throughput, the W7400 is the clear choice.

The Ryzen Z2 A GPU offers double the memory capacity at 16 GB versus 8 GB, though with lower bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s against 172.8 GB/s. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for power-constrained environments, whereas the W7400 draws 55 W and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. The data positions the W7400 as the performance leader, while the Z2 A GPU serves scenarios prioritizing memory capacity and minimal power draw.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural generations from AMD. The Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation and is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter.

The Ryzen Z2 A GPU employs the Van Gogh chip based on RDNA 2.0 and falls under the Console GPU generation. TSMC fabricates this design on a 7 nm process. The die measures 163 mm² and contains 2,400 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 14.7 million per square millimeter. The architectural gap between RDNA 3.0 and RDNA 2.0 accounts for meaningful differences in feature support and efficiency characteristics.

Compute unit configurations differ substantially. The W7400 carries 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 28 ray tracing cores. The Z2 A GPU offers 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray tracing cores. These numbers indicate the W7400 provides roughly 3.5 times the shading units and 4 times the ROPs of the Z2 A GPU.

FP16 processing reveals an architectural distinction. The W7400 achieves 7.885 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, indicating equal throughput for both precision types. The Z2 A GPU reaches 3.277 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, meaning FP16 performance doubles FP32 performance. This suggests the RDNA 3.0 architecture in the W7400 handles FP16 natively at full rate, whereas the RDNA 2.0 design in the Z2 A GPU uses a different execution approach.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, providing identical API coverage. The W7400 uses GDDR6 memory while the Z2 A GPU uses LPDDR5, reflecting their different design targets.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W7400 wins decisively in raw compute workloads. Its FP32 throughput of 7.885 TFLOPS enables demanding graphics and compute tasks that the Z2 A GPU cannot approach. The pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s provide the throughput necessary for high-resolution rendering and texture-heavy scenes. The 28 ray tracing cores deliver hardware-accelerated ray tracing capability that scales with the higher shading unit count.

Memory bandwidth favors the W7400 at 172.8 GB/s, which is 69% higher than the Z2 A GPU's 102.4 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage benefits data-intensive workloads such as large texture sets, compute shaders, and memory-bound rendering passes. The 128-bit bus width is identical between the two, so the bandwidth difference stems entirely from the faster 10.8 Gbps effective memory speed of the GDDR6 implementation versus the 6.4 Gbps effective LPDDR5 speed.

The Ryzen Z2 A GPU wins on memory capacity with 16 GB versus 8 GB, doubling the available framebuffer. This capacity advantage suits workloads that require large datasets resident in memory, even at lower bandwidth. The Z2 A GPU also wins decisively on power consumption at 15 W TDP, which is 40 W lower than the W7400's 55 W TDP. This makes the Z2 A GPU suitable for compact, fanless, or battery-powered implementations where thermal constraints dominate.

The W7400 provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs for multi-monitor professional setups. The Z2 A GPU offers a single USB Type-C output, reflecting its integration into handheld or console-style devices rather than workstation environments.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, which is approximately 4.8 times the 1.638 TFLOPS of the Ryzen Z2 A GPU.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Z2 A GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The Ryzen Z2 A GPU has a 15 W TDP, significantly lower than the Radeon PRO W7400's 55 W TDP.

Q: What are the architectural generations of these GPUs?

A: The W7400 uses RDNA 3.0 with the Navi 33 chip on a 6 nm process. The Z2 A GPU uses RDNA 2.0 with the Van Gogh chip on a 7 nm process.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: What display outputs does each GPU provide?

A: The W7400 offers four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The Z2 A GPU provides one USB Type-C output.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs, and neither has an average benchmark score listed. However, the specification data provides clear comparative signals that allow analysis of expected performance relationships.

FP32 throughput shows the largest gap. The W7400 achieves 7.885 TFLOPS against the Z2 A GPU's 1.638 TFLOPS, a 4.8 times advantage. This magnitude of difference indicates that compute-bound workloads will complete nearly five times faster on the W7400, assuming the rest of the system does not bottleneck.

Pixel fill rate favors the W7400 at 70.40 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s, a 2.75 times advantage. This affects rasterization throughput at high resolutions and with heavy overdraw. The texture rate gap is smaller at 123.2 GTexel/s versus 51.20 GTexel/s, a 2.4 times difference, which influences texture-heavy scene rendering.

Memory bandwidth gives the W7400 a 1.69 times advantage at 172.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. The Z2 A GPU counters with 16 GB capacity against 8 GB, allowing it to hold larger working sets despite slower transfer rates.

Ray tracing resources show the W7400 with 28 ray tracing cores versus 8 on the Z2 A GPU. The shading unit count of 1,792 versus 512 and ROP count of 64 versus 16 reinforce the W7400's compute dominance.

The clock behavior differs notably. The W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and boost clock of 1100 MHz, while the Z2 A GPU runs at 1000 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. Despite the Z2 A GPU's higher clocks, its much smaller execution resource pool cannot compensate for the W7400's larger configuration.

Specification Differences

The process node differs: the W7400 uses 6 nm while the Z2 A GPU uses 7 nm, both from TSMC. Transistor count shows 13,300 million for the W7400 against 2,400 million for the Z2 A GPU. Die size measures 204 mm² versus 163 mm², with transistor density at 65.2 million per square millimeter versus 14.7 million per square millimeter.

Memory type differs with GDDR6 on the W7400 and LPDDR5 on the Z2 A GPU. Memory size doubles in favor of the Z2 A GPU at 16 GB versus 8 GB. Memory clock runs at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective on the W7400, while the Z2 A GPU runs at 800 MHz with 6.4 Gbps effective. Bandwidth favors the W7400 at 172.8 GB/s against 102.4 GB/s.

Shading units number 1,792 on the W7400 versus 512 on the Z2 A GPU. TMUs total 112 against 32, and ROPs total 64 against 16. Ray tracing cores number 28 versus 8. FP32 performance reaches 7.885 TFLOPS versus 1.638 TFLOPS. FP16 performance shows 7.885 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio versus 3.277 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio.

Pixel rate measures 70.40 GPixel/s against 25.60 GPixel/s. Texture rate measures 123.2 GTexel/s against 51.20 GTexel/s. TDP is 55 W versus 15 W. The W7400 is single-slot with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU; the Z2 A GPU lists no slot width, power connectors, or PSU recommendation.

The W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Z2 A GPU has no bus interface listed. Display outputs differ: four DisplayPort 2.1 ports on the W7400 versus one USB Type-C on the Z2 A GPU. Dimensions are recorded only for the W7400 at 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width.

Release timing places the W7400 in 2025 and the Z2 A GPU in 2024. The W7400 lists the Radeon Pro Vega as its predecessor. Both GPUs remain in active production status.