AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU represent two very different design philosophies from the same manufacturer. The W7400 is a professional workstation card built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the Z2 Go is a low-power console-class GPU based on the older RDNA 2.0 architecture. The recorded data shows a clear split between raw compute throughput and memory capacity, with each GPU dominating in distinct areas.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant performance gap appears in floating-point compute. The Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 90% higher than the Z2 Go's 4.147 TFLOPS. This near-doubling of single-precision throughput gives the W7400 a decisive advantage in any workload that relies heavily on standard shader math. The W7400 achieves this with 1792 shading units compared to the Z2 Go's 768, meaning it has more than twice the raw shader hardware.

The texture processing comparison follows a similar pattern. The W7400 outputs 123.2 GTexel/s, while the Z2 Go manages 129.6 GTexel/s. Interestingly, the Z2 Go actually wins this metric despite having only 48 TMUs against the W7400's 112 TMUs. The Z2 Go's much higher clock speeds compensate for its fewer texture units. Its boost clock reaches 2700 MHz, whereas the W7400 only boosts to 1100 MHz. This clock advantage also explains the pixel rate disparity, where the Z2 Go produces 86.40 GPixel/s versus the W7400's 70.40 GPixel/s.

The FP16 comparison reveals a different architectural approach. The W7400 runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, giving it 7.885 TFLOPS. The Z2 Go uses a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP16 throughput to 8.294 TFLOPS. So despite being far weaker in FP32, the Z2 Go actually edges ahead in FP16 compute. This makes the Z2 Go more efficient for certain machine learning or half-precision workloads, while the W7400 maintains consistent performance across both precisions.

Memory bandwidth heavily favors the W7400. It accesses 172.8 GB/s through an 8 GB GDDR6 interface, while the Z2 Go gets only 102.4 GB/s from its 16 GB LPDDR5 pool. The W7400's memory clock runs at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) versus the Z2 Go's 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective). This bandwidth advantage matters for high-resolution textures, large framebuffers, and compute tasks that stream data through memory.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W7400 wins in raw compute density and bandwidth. Its 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 output suits professional 3D rendering, CAD visualization, and simulation workloads that rely on heavy single-precision math. The 172.8 GB/s bandwidth supports large data sets and complex scenes without bottlenecking. The 28 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced workflows, a feature that matters in modern DCC applications.

The Ryzen Z2 Go wins in clock speed and memory capacity. Its 2700 MHz boost clock is nearly 2.5 times higher than the W7400's 1100 MHz, which shows in the pixel and texture rate results. The 16 GB memory capacity doubles the W7400's 8 GB, allowing larger textures and more data resident on the GPU itself. The 2:1 FP16 ratio gives it 8.294 TFLOPS for half-precision tasks, exceeding the W7400's FP16 output. The Z2 Go also consumes significantly less power, with a 28 W TDP against the W7400's 55 W.

The W7400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups. The Z2 Go offers a single USB Type-C display output, which aligns with its console-oriented design. The W7400 comes in a single-slot form factor measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The Z2 Go has no recorded dimensions or slot width, indicating it is not designed as a standalone add-in card.

Architecture Differences

The process nodes are identical: both GPUs use 6 nm TSMC fabrication. The transistor counts are also very close, with the W7400 at 13,300 million and the Z2 Go at 13,100 million. The die sizes differ slightly, with the W7400 at 204 mm² and the Z2 Go at 208 mm². This yields a marginally higher transistor density for the W7400 at 65.2M per mm² versus 63.0M per mm².

The architectural generation is the main differentiator. The W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture and the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The Z2 Go uses the Rembrandt+ chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture and is classified under Console GPU (AMD). This generation gap explains the different feature sets and efficiency profiles.

The W7400's RDNA 3.0 design includes 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The Z2 Go's RDNA 2.0 design has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. Neither GPU includes tensor cores.

Memory types differ completely. The W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the Z2 Go uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus width. The GDDR6 memory operates at a much higher effective speed of 10.8 Gbps versus the LPDDR5's 6.4 Gbps. This explains why the W7400 achieves 172.8 GB/s despite having the same bus width as the Z2 Go's 102.4 GB/s.

Power delivery also differs significantly. The W7400 has a 55 W TDP and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, though it needs no power connectors and is single-slot. The Z2 Go has a 28 W TDP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU rating. The Z2 Go's lower power draw makes it suitable for compact or mobile implementations.

The Verdict

The data indicates the Radeon PRO W7400 is the stronger choice for compute-intensive professional workloads. Its 90% FP32 advantage, 68% bandwidth advantage, and nearly 2.5 times more shading units make it the superior option for 3D rendering, simulation, and any task that stresses raw shader throughput. The 28 ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration that the Z2 Go's 12 cores cannot match. The 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs support professional multi-monitor configurations.

The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU wins for efficiency and capacity-oriented use cases. Its 28 W TDP is less than half the W7400's 55 W, making it better suited for power-constrained environments. The 16 GB memory capacity is double the W7400's 8 GB, which benefits workloads that need large working sets. The higher clock speeds and 2:1 FP16 ratio give it advantages in pixel throughput and half-precision compute. The 86.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 129.6 GTexel/s texture rate exceed the W7400's corresponding figures.

Users who prioritize FP32 compute, bandwidth, or ray tracing performance should select the W7400. Users who need lower power consumption, more memory capacity, or higher FP16 throughput should select the Z2 Go. The W7400 released in August 2025, while the Z2 Go released in December 2024. Both remain in active production. The W7400's predecessor was the Radeon Pro Vega, while the Z2 Go has no recorded predecessor or successor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32, which is 90% higher than the Ryzen Z2 Go's 4.147 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The W7400 achieves 172.8 GB/s from its 8 GB GDDR6 memory, while the Z2 Go reaches 102.4 GB/s from its 16 GB LPDDR5 memory. Both use a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has more memory capacity?

A: The Ryzen Z2 Go has 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory, double the 8 GB of GDDR6 found on the Radeon PRO W7400.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Z2 Go has a 28 W TDP, while the W7400 has a 55 W TDP. The W7400 also lists a 250 W suggested PSU, while the Z2 Go has no suggested PSU rating.

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 Go has 768 shading units and 12 ray tracing cores.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither includes tensor cores.