AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions these two AMD parts in entirely different segments. The Radeon PRO W7400 is a desktop workstation GPU built around the Navi 33 chip, while the Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU is a low-power integrated graphics solution from the Strix Point chip. Benchmark results show a clear split: the W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores but holds a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, whereas the Z2 Extreme GPU has a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 516, placing it in the 1st percentile. The nearest rivals to the Z2 Extreme GPU confirm its modest standing: it trails the Intel HD Graphics P4000 by 3.4%, trails the AMD Radeon HD 6870 by 3.7%, leads the AMD Radeon HD 6750M by 6.6%, and trails the AMD Radeon HD 6770M by 9.3%. The data indicates the W7400 is the choice for professional rendering and compute workloads, while the Z2 Extreme GPU serves as an embedded or handheld-class graphics solution where power draw is the primary constraint.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design families. The Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, codename Hotpink Bonefish, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU uses the Strix Point chip with RDNA 3.5 architecture and belongs to the Console GPU (AMD) generation. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 34,000 million transistors on a 233 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 145.9M per mm². The Z2 Extreme GPU packs more than twice the transistor count in a slightly larger die, reflecting the denser 4 nm node.

Compute resources differ substantially. The W7400 carries 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation units, and 28 ray tracing cores. The Z2 Extreme GPU has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 48 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. The W7400 therefore has 75% more shading units, 75% more TMUs, 33% more ROPs, and 75% more ray tracing cores than the Z2 Extreme GPU. Neither part lists tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Clock speeds show a different balance. The W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The Z2 Extreme GPU runs at a base clock of 800 MHz and boosts to 2700 MHz. Despite the higher clocks on the Z2 Extreme GPU, the W7400's larger shader array and dedicated desktop design produce a higher FP32 throughput of 7.885 TFLOPS compared to 5.530 TFLOPS on the Z2 Extreme GPU. FP16 performance matches FP32 on both parts at a 1:1 ratio.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table contains no entries, so direct comparison scores between these two specific products are not recorded in the database. However, the Z2 Extreme GPU has a standalone 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 516, with an average benchmark score of 516. Its percentile ranking of 1 indicates it sits at the very bottom of the database's GPU performance distribution. The nearest rival data provides context: the Intel HD Graphics P4000 scores 534, 3.4% higher; the AMD Radeon HD 6870 scores 536, 3.7% higher; the AMD Radeon HD 6750M scores 484, which the Z2 Extreme GPU beats by 6.6%; and the AMD Radeon HD 6770M scores 569, 9.3% higher than the Z2 Extreme GPU. The Z2 Extreme GPU thus lands between a mobile Radeon HD 6750M and desktop HD 6770M-class parts from over a decade ago in this workload.

The W7400 has no benchmark entries in the database, but its 50th percentile ranking places it at the median of all recorded GPUs. This percentile gap is the most informative comparison available: the W7400 sits at the midpoint of the entire GPU population, while the Z2 Extreme GPU occupies the 1st percentile. The lack of a shared benchmark prevents a direct score delta, but the percentile difference of 49 points indicates a very large performance separation.

Specification Differences

Memory configurations differ in capacity and type. The W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The Z2 Extreme GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.0 GB/s at 1000 MHz (8 Gbps effective). The W7400 provides 35% more memory bandwidth despite half the capacity, while the Z2 Extreme GPU offers double the capacity for larger working sets.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, with no power connectors required. The Z2 Extreme GPU has a TDP of 28 W, no listed suggested PSU, and no power connectors. The W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The Z2 Extreme GPU has no listed slot width or dimensions, consistent with an integrated or embedded solution rather than a discrete add-in card.

Interface and display outputs also differ. The W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The Z2 Extreme GPU has no listed bus interface and provides a single USB Type-C output. Production status is Active for both parts. Release dates are close: the Z2 Extreme GPU launched on 2025-07-08 and the W7400 on 2025-08-02. The W7400 lists the Radeon Pro Vega as its predecessor, while the Z2 Extreme GPU has no predecessor listed. Neither product has a successor listed, and neither has a launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, while the Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU delivers 5.530 TFLOPS FP32. The W7400 is ahead by 2.355 TFLOPS, or roughly 43% higher.

Q: How does the Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Z2 Extreme GPU scores 516 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12. It trails the Intel HD Graphics P4000 by 3.4%, trails the AMD Radeon HD 6870 by 3.7%, leads the AMD Radeon HD 6750M by 6.6%, and trails the AMD Radeon HD 6770M by 9.3%.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and which has more bandwidth?

A: The Z2 Extreme GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5X, double the 8 GB of GDDR6 on the W7400. The W7400 has higher bandwidth at 172.8 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s on the Z2 Extreme GPU.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The W7400 has a TDP of 55 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Z2 Extreme GPU has a TDP of 28 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: The W7400 has 1792 shading units and 28 ray tracing cores. The Z2 Extreme GPU has 1024 shading units and 16 ray tracing cores. The W7400 leads by 768 shading units and 12 ray tracing cores.

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.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W7400 wins in compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and rasterization rates. Its FP32 output of 7.885 TFLOPS exceeds the Z2 Extreme GPU's 5.530 TFLOPS by 43%. Its pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s are complemented by the Z2 Extreme GPU's higher figures of 129.6 GPixel/s and 172.8 GTexel/s, which means the Z2 Extreme GPU actually wins on fill rates despite fewer shaders. The W7400's 172.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is 35% higher than the Z2 Extreme GPU's 128.0 GB/s, which benefits bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The W7400 also provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs versus a single USB Type-C on the Z2 Extreme GPU, making it the choice for multi-display workstation setups. Its 50th percentile ranking versus the Z2 Extreme GPU's 1st percentile reinforces its advantage across the database's GPU population.

The Ryzen Z2 Extreme GPU wins on power efficiency, memory capacity, and clock speed. Its TDP of 28 W is less than half the W7400's 55 W, and it operates at a base clock of 800 MHz and boost of 2700 MHz, substantially higher than the W7400's 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost. Its 16 GB memory capacity doubles the W7400's 8 GB, allowing larger datasets to reside locally despite lower bandwidth. The Z2 Extreme GPU's higher pixel rate of 129.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 172.8 GTexel/s indicate it processes raster primitives faster per clock, which is relevant for lower-resolution or simplified workloads. The 4 nm process with 145.9M transistors per mm² density, versus 65.2M on the 6 nm W7400, shows the Z2 Extreme GPU uses a more advanced manufacturing node to achieve its efficiency profile.

For desktop workstation use with multiple displays and sustained professional rendering, the W7400 is the appropriate selection. For handheld, console-style, or low-power embedded systems where the 28 W TDP and integrated nature of the Z2 Extreme GPU fit the design envelope, the Z2 Extreme GPU is the appropriate selection. The benchmark data shows the Z2 Extreme GPU performing at a level comparable to legacy HD 6000-series parts, which contextualizes its role as a lightweight integrated solution rather than a discrete-class performer.