AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU. Both entries show an average benchmark score of zero, and the wins counters for each side are set to zero. This absence of measured performance data means a numerical comparison of their relative speeds cannot be constructed from the database. However, the architectural and specification differences present in the data allow for a qualitative projection of where each part holds an advantage.

The most striking gap appears in raw compute throughput. The Radeon PRO W7400 lists a FP32 performance of 7.885 TFLOPS, while the Steam Deck OLED GPU lists 1.638 TFLOPS. This represents a 4.8x difference in single-precision floating-point work. In FP16, the PRO W7400 maintains a 1:1 ratio with 7.885 TFLOPS, whereas the Steam Deck OLED GPU uses a 2:1 ratio to reach 3.277 TFLOPS. The PRO W7400 still delivers more than double the FP16 throughput. These figures suggest the workstation card processes shader-heavy workloads at a substantially higher rate.

Pixel and texture throughput also favor the PRO W7400. The card records a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s. The Steam Deck OLED GPU records 25.60 GPixel/s and 51.20 GTexel/s. The PRO W7400 is 2.75x faster in pixel fill and 2.4x faster in texture fill. These differences indicate that rasterization-heavy scenes, which depend on fill rates, would complete more quickly on the workstation part.

Memory bandwidth is nearly identical, which is a notable result. The PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus to reach 172.8 GB/s. The Steam Deck OLED GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus to reach 176.0 GB/s. The Steam Deck part is marginally ahead by 3.2 GB/s, a 1.9% difference. Capacity, however, is a different story: the Steam Deck OLED GPU offers double the memory at 16 GB versus 8 GB. For large datasets or textures that exceed 8 GB, the Steam Deck part would avoid swapping, while the PRO W7400 would not.

The compute unit counts reinforce the compute gap. The PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray accelerators. The Steam Deck OLED GPU has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray accelerators. The PRO W7400 carries 3.5x the shading units, 3.5x the TMUs, 4x the ROPs, and 3.5x the ray accelerators. Each of these components scales directly with the throughput figures listed above.

Clock speeds present a partial counterweight. The Steam Deck OLED GPU has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1600 MHz. The PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The Steam Deck part boosts 45% higher, but this advantage is overwhelmed by the PRO W7400's larger execution resource pool. The PRO W7400 also draws 55 W against the Steam Deck's 15 W, a 3.7x power envelope, which explains the resource disparity.

The Verdict

The data indicates two devices designed for entirely different operating envelopes. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a desktop workstation card with a 55 W TDP, a single-slot cooler, no external power connectors, and a suggested power supply of 250 W. It uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and outputs to four DisplayPort 2.1 connectors. The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU is a console-class integrated part with a 15 W TDP, no separate slot width, no power connector data, no bus interface data, and a single USB Type-C display output. The PRO W7400 targets a multi-monitor professional environment; the Steam Deck GPU targets a fixed, portable device.

The compute data shows the PRO W7400 is the stronger part for FP32 and FP16 workloads, with 4.8x and 2.4x the throughput respectively. The Steam Deck OLED GPU counters with double the memory capacity and a slightly higher memory bandwidth. For workloads that fit within 8 GB, the PRO W7400 should finish faster. For workloads that exceed 8 GB, the Steam Deck part's 16 GB pool becomes the decisive factor, though its lower compute rates would still limit overall speed.

The percentile versus all GPUs is identical for both at 50, and both carry an average benchmark score of zero. The database does not support a claim that one is strictly superior. The PRO W7400 is the compute-oriented choice; the Steam Deck OLED GPU is the memory-capacity-oriented choice. Neither has a launch MSRP listed, so no cost analysis is possible from the data.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different RDNA generations. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses RDNA 3.0 with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU uses RDNA 2.0 with the Sephiroth chip and no codename listed. This generation gap manifests in the FP16 ratio: RDNA 3.0 on the PRO W7400 executes FP16 at a 1:1 rate with FP32, while RDNA 2.0 on the Steam Deck part executes FP16 at a 2:1 rate. The newer architecture also supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the Steam Deck part lists Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6.

The transistor counts differ sharply. The Navi 33 chip contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a density of 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The Sephiroth chip contains 2,400 million transistors on a 131 mm² die, yielding 18.3 million per square millimeter. Both use a 6 nm process at TSMC. The PRO W7400 packs 5.5x the transistors into 1.56x the die area, which explains its much larger execution resource counts.

Ray tracing hardware is present on both, but in different quantities. The PRO W7400 has 28 ray accelerators; the Steam Deck OLED GPU has 8. This 3.5x difference suggests the workstation card handles ray-traced scenes with more parallelism, though the database provides no direct ray tracing benchmark to confirm the scaling.

The Steam Deck OLED GPU does not list a codename, a predecessor, or a successor. The PRO W7400 lists its predecessor as the Radeon Pro Vega and no successor. Both parts are marked as Active in production status. The PRO W7400 was released on 2025-08-02, while the Steam Deck OLED GPU was released on 2023-11-08.

Specification Differences

The two parts diverge on nearly every specification field. The PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory; the Steam Deck OLED GPU uses 16 GB of LPDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the memory clock differs: the PRO W7400 runs at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), while the Steam Deck part runs at 1375 MHz (11 Gbps effective). The resulting bandwidths are 172.8 GB/s and 176.0 GB/s respectively.

The PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The Steam Deck OLED GPU has a base clock of 1000 MHz and a boost clock of 1600 MHz. The PRO W7400's TDP is 55 W, while the Steam Deck part is 15 W. The PRO W7400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W power supply. The Steam Deck part has no slot width, no power connector, and no suggested PSU data.

The PRO W7400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. The Steam Deck OLED GPU has no bus interface listed. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.1 on the PRO W7400 versus 1x USB Type-C on the Steam Deck part. Physical dimensions differ: the PRO W7400 is 168 mm long, 69 mm high, and 20 mm wide; the Steam Deck OLED GPU is 298 mm long, 117 mm high, and 49 mm wide.

The PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray accelerators. The Steam Deck OLED GPU has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 ray accelerators. FP32 is 7.885 TFLOPS versus 1.638 TFLOPS. FP16 is 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 3.277 TFLOPS (2:1). Pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s versus 51.20 GTexel/s.

The PRO W7400 has no tensor cores listed, and neither does the Steam Deck OLED GPU. The PRO W7400 lists a generation of "Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series)", while the Steam Deck part lists "Console GPU (Valve)". Both are manufactured by AMD at TSMC on a 6 nm process.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units, while the AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU has 512 shading units. The PRO W7400 has 3.5x more.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory bandwidth?

A: No, but they are close. The PRO W7400 has 172.8 GB/s, and the Steam Deck OLED GPU has 176.0 GB/s. The Steam Deck part is 3.2 GB/s higher.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU supports Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W, and the Steam Deck OLED GPU has a TDP of 15 W. The PRO W7400 draws 40 W more.

Q: How does memory capacity compare?

A: The Steam Deck OLED GPU has 16 GB of LPDDR5, while the PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6. The Steam Deck part has double the capacity.

Q: Which GPU has more ray accelerators?

A: The PRO W7400 has 28 ray accelerators, and the Steam Deck OLED GPU has 8. The PRO W7400 has 3.5x more.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins on raw compute. Its FP32 throughput of 7.885 TFLOPS is 4.8x the Steam Deck OLED GPU's 1.638 TFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput of 7.885 TFLOPS is 2.4x the Steam Deck part's 3.277 TFLOPS. Pixel rate favors the PRO W7400 at 70.40 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s, a 2.75x margin. Texture rate favors the PRO W7400 at 123.2 GTexel/s versus 51.20 GTexel/s, a 2.4x margin. The workstation card also offers four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it the choice for multi-display professional setups. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and single-slot form factor fit a conventional desktop workstation.

The AMD Steam Deck OLED GPU wins on memory capacity. Its 16 GB pool is double the PRO W7400's 8 GB. Its bandwidth of 176.0 GB/s is 1.9% higher. Its boost clock of 1600 MHz is 45% higher than the PRO W7400's 1100 MHz, which helps it extract more work per compute unit despite having fewer units. Its 15 W TDP is 3.7x lower than the PRO W7400's 55 W, which suits a portable console context. The single USB Type-C output matches a mobile device design rather than a multi-monitor workstation.

Neither GPU shows any recorded benchmark wins in the database. The wins counters are zero for both. The percentile versus all GPUs is 50 for each. The average benchmark score is zero for each. The data therefore describes two specialized parts with complementary strengths: one optimized for throughput and display flexibility, the other for capacity and power efficiency.