AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA B300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the NVIDIA B300. Neither device lists any benchmark scores, average scores, or win counts in the database. Both cards hold a percentile rank of 50 against all GPUs, indicating that the database has not yet placed them in a competitive ranking through measured workloads. The absence of measured results means the comparative analysis must rely entirely on the documented architectural and specification differences, rather than observed performance deltas.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS, a 9.76x advantage in raw single-precision throughput. In FP16 workloads, the gap widens dramatically: the B300 reaches 1,231.8 TFLOPS, whereas the W7400 sustains 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. The B300's 16:1 FP16 ratio indicates that its tensor cores are the dominant compute path, while the W7400 treats FP16 and FP32 equally.

Memory bandwidth separates the two even further. The NVIDIA B300 accesses 144 GB of HBM3e across a 4096-bit bus for 4.10 TB/s. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus for 172.8 GB/s. That is a 23.7x bandwidth advantage for the B300, a differential that will influence any memory-bound workload far more than the compute ratio alone suggests.

Pixel throughput is one area where the AMD card posts a higher figure. The W7400 renders at 70.40 GPixel/s, while the B300 manages 48.77 GPixel/s. The W7400 has 64 ROPs against the B300's 24 ROPs, which explains the pixel rate advantage despite the B300's much larger shader array. Texture rate tells the opposite story: the B300 reaches 1,202.9 GTexel/s from 592 TMUs, while the W7400 sustains 123.2 GTexel/s from 112 TMUs, a 9.76x difference that mirrors the FP32 ratio.

Clock behavior also diverges sharply. The W7400 runs a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost of 1100 MHz, unusually low figures for a modern GPU, likely reflecting its power envelope. The B300 operates at a 1665 MHz base and 2032 MHz boost. The B300's boost clock is 1.85x the W7400's boost clock. The W7400's memory clock is listed at 1350 MHz, with 10.8 Gbps effective, while the B300's memory runs at 2000 MHz, with 8 Gbps effective, though the B300's far wider bus makes its effective bandwidth vastly higher.

Both cards sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs, and neither has nearest rivals recorded. The database shows no wins for either side in head-to-head comparisons. Any claims about which card is faster must therefore be drawn from the specification sheet, not from executed benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA B300 delivers 76.99 TFLOPS of FP32, which is 9.76x the AMD Radeon PRO W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA B300 uses 144 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either card support ray tracing or tensor operations?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The NVIDIA B300 includes 592 tensor cores, and its ray tracing core count is not recorded in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA B300 has a TDP of 1400 W and a suggested PSU of 1800 W.

Q: How do the pixel rates compare?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 achieves 70.40 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA B300 achieves 48.77 GPixel/s. The W7400 has 64 ROPs compared to the B300's 24 ROPs.

Q: What display outputs does each card provide?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The NVIDIA B300 provides no display outputs, consistent with its server-oriented SXM module form factor.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in pixel fill rate. Its 70.40 GPixel/s exceeds the B300's 48.77 GPixel/s, and its 64 ROPs outnumber the B300's 24 ROPs. This suggests the W7400 is better suited to workloads that stress rasterization output stages, such as traditional 2D compositing or lower-resolution rendering where pixel throughput is the limiting factor. The W7400 also offers display outputs, with 4x DisplayPort 2.1, making it usable in workstation setups that require direct monitor connection, whereas the B300 has no outputs at all.

The NVIDIA B300 wins in nearly every other computed metric. FP32 throughput is 9.76x higher. FP16 throughput is 156.2x higher when comparing the B300's 1,231.8 TFLOPS to the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. Texture rate is 9.76x higher at 1,202.9 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is 23.7x higher at 4.10 TB/s versus 172.8 GB/s, and memory capacity is 18x larger at 144 GB versus 8 GB. The B300's 592 tensor cores provide a compute path the W7400 lacks entirely.

The B300 also operates at higher clocks. Its 1665 MHz base and 2032 MHz boost clocks exceed the W7400's 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost clocks. The B300 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, giving the B300 a wider and newer bus connection.

For use cases that demand massive memory capacity, such as large model inference or data-parallel workloads with huge working sets, the B300's 144 GB HBM3e pool is the clear choice. For workloads that rely on raster output or require physical display connectivity, the W7400 has the advantage. The W7400 also wins on power draw, with a 55 W TDP versus the B300's 1400 W TDP, and a suggested PSU of 250 W versus 1800 W.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every recorded field. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture and the codename Hotpink Bonefish. The NVIDIA B300 uses the GB110 chip with Blackwell Ultra architecture, with no codename recorded. The W7400 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation, while the B300 belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation.

Process node and transistor counts differ. The W7400 is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The B300 is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 104,000 million transistors, with no die size or density recorded.

Memory specifications are entirely different. The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The B300 has 144 GB of HBM3e on a 4096-bit bus with 4.10 TB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) for the W7400 and 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the B300.

Compute unit counts differ. The W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The B300 has 18944 shading units, 592 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 592 tensor cores, with no ray tracing core count recorded. The W7400 has no tensor cores.

Power and physical specifications diverge. The W7400 has a 55 W TDP, is single-slot, uses no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The B300 has a 1400 W TDP, is an SXM Module, and suggests a 1800 W PSU. The W7400 is 168 mm long, 69 mm high, and 20 mm wide. The B300 has no dimensions recorded.

Bus and display capabilities differ. The W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The B300 uses PCIe 5.0 x16 and provides no display outputs. API support also differs: the W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the B300 has no API support recorded.

Production status is Active for both. The W7400 was released on 2025-08-02, and the B300 was released on 2025-09-10. The W7400's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, with no successor recorded. The B300's predecessor is the Server Hopper, and its successor is the Server Rubin.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Navi 33 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process. It integrates 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The architecture is a unified shader design with 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Ray tracing is handled by 28 dedicated ray tracing cores. FP16 and FP32 throughput are identical at 7.885 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio with no separate tensor path.

The NVIDIA B300 uses Blackwell Ultra architecture on the GB110 chip, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process. It integrates 104,000 million transistors, with no die size recorded. The architecture includes 18944 shading units, 592 TMUs, and only 24 ROPs. Tensor cores number 592, and their presence explains the FP16 throughput of 1,231.8 TFLOPS at a 16:1 ratio, meaning the tensor cores are the primary FP16 execution units rather than the shader array.

The ROP count difference is notable. The W7400's 64 ROPs exceed the B300's 24 ROPs, which is why the W7400 achieves a higher pixel rate despite having far fewer shaders and TMUs. The B300 appears optimized for compute throughput and tensor operations, with the smaller ROP count reflecting a design focus away from traditional rasterization.

Memory architecture reinforces this split. The W7400 uses GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus, a conventional workstation memory layout. The B300 uses HBM3e with a 4096-bit bus, a stacked-memory approach that provides enormous bandwidth but requires the SXM module form factor. The B300's memory clock is higher at 2000 MHz, but its effective rate of 8 Gbps is lower than the W7400's 10.8 Gbps; the bus width difference overwhelms this clock comparison.

Power architecture also differs. The W7400 draws 55 W and needs no power connectors, while the B300 draws 1400 W and requires a 1800 W suggested PSU. The W7400 is a single-slot card that fits in a standard PCIe slot, while the B300 is an SXM Module, a form factor designed for server chassis rather than desktop systems. The W7400's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is narrower and older than the B300's PCIe 5.0 x16.

The W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, indicating a client-oriented rendering stack. The B300 has no API support recorded, consistent with a server accelerator that may rely on compute APIs rather than graphics APIs. The W7400 also provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the B300 provides none.

Release timing places the W7400 on 2025-08-02 and the B300 on 2025-09-10. The W7400's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, and the B300's predecessor is the Server Hopper. The B300 has a recorded successor, the Server Rubin, while the W7400 has none.

The Verdict

The data indicates two devices designed for different purposes. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a low-power workstation card with display outputs, rasterization strength, and a modest 55 W TDP. Its 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate and 64 ROPs make it suitable for graphics-oriented tasks, and its 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs allow direct monitor connections. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth are limited, but its power requirements are minimal, needing only a 250 W suggested PSU.

The NVIDIA B300 is a server accelerator with massive compute resources. Its 76.99 TFLOPS FP32, 1,231.8 TFLOPS FP16, 144 GB HBM3e, and 4.10 TB/s bandwidth place it in a different performance class entirely. Its 592 tensor cores provide dedicated matrix math capability. Its 1400 W TDP and 1800 W suggested PSU mean it requires server-grade power delivery, and its SXM Module form factor with no display outputs confirms a datacenter orientation.

Benchmark results are absent from the database for both cards, so the verdict rests on specifications. The W7400 is the choice for workloads that need graphics output, rasterization throughput, or low power draw. The B300 is the choice for compute-heavy server workloads that can use its tensor cores, large memory pool, and extreme bandwidth. The 9.76x FP32 advantage, 156.2x FP16 advantage, and 23.7x bandwidth advantage for the B300 are decisive for compute, while the W7400's higher pixel rate, display outputs, and lower power envelope define its niche. Neither card has a recorded benchmark score or nearest rivals, so the database currently classifies both at the 50th percentile without comparative measurements.