AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA GB10 Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and NVIDIA GB10 occupy very different positions in the hardware landscape, and the recorded data reflects that split clearly. The GB10 delivers substantially higher raw compute performance, with an FP32 rating of 29.71 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS for the W7400, and it carries a 95th percentile ranking among all GPUs in the database. The W7400 sits at the 50th percentile, which places it in the middle of the field. These are not direct competitors in the traditional sense, but comparing them reveals how architecture, memory configuration, and intended use case diverge between a workstation card and a server-oriented processor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The NVIDIA GB10 has recorded benchmark scores, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no entries in the database for any test. This absence of data means the comparison rests entirely on the GB10’s measured results and the architectural specifications of both parts.

For the GB10, the Geekbench OpenCL score is 120,137, and the Geekbench Vulkan score is 114,648. The average benchmark score across these two tests is 117,393. Relative to its nearest rivals in the database, the GB10 sits slightly ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, which posts an average score of 117,088, a delta of 0.3 percent. It trails the AMD Radeon PRO W7700, which scores 118,976, by 1.3 percent. Against the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, the GB10 leads by 2.6 percent (114,395), and it is 3 percent ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944). These margins are modest, indicating that the GB10 performs in the same general tier as those established workstation and server cards, despite its different architecture.

The W7400, by contrast, has no benchmark scores and no nearest rivals listed. The database shows zero wins for the W7400 and zero wins for the GB10 in direct head-to-head tests, because no such tests exist. The only measurable performance evidence comes from the GB10’s two Geekbench runs. Based on the FP32 throughput figures, the GB10 delivers approximately 3.8 times the compute throughput of the W7400 (29.71 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS). That is a direct specification comparison, not a benchmark result, but it aligns with the GB10’s higher percentile ranking. The W7400’s lack of recorded benchmarks means no direct score-to-score comparison can be made, and the analysis must rely on the listed technical characteristics.

Where Each One Wins

The GB10 wins clearly in raw compute density and memory capacity. It offers 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 273.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. For tasks that require large datasets resident in local memory, the GB10’s 16-fold capacity advantage is decisive. The GB10 also has 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 48 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 384 tensor cores. The W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores, with no tensor cores listed. The GB10’s tensor core count is a major differentiator for workloads that use matrix operations, since the W7400 has none.

The W7400 wins in several practical areas. Its power draw is 55 W, compared to 140 W for the GB10, and its suggested power supply is 250 W versus 300 W. The W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, while the GB10 is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with dimensions of 150 mm by 51 mm by 150 mm, which suggests a different physical mounting approach. The W7400 provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, whereas the GB10 has a single HDMI output. For multi-display workstation setups, the W7400 is the clear choice. The W7400 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the GB10 lists N/A for all three APIs, indicating it is not intended for client-side graphics rendering.

In terms of production status, both are listed as Active. The GB10 has a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD, while the W7400 has no launch MSRP recorded. The release dates differ by several months, with the W7400 releasing on 2025-08-02 and the GB10 on 2025-10-14.

Architecture Differences

The W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The process node is 6 nm at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². Base clock is 330 MHz, boost clock is 1100 MHz, and memory runs at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective data rate. The FP16 performance matches FP32 at 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

The GB10 uses the GB20B chip built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, with no codename listed. It belongs to the Server Blackwell (Bxx) generation. The process node is 5 nm at TSMC, and the die size is 382 mm². Transistor count is listed as unknown, and transistor density is not provided. Base clock is 1665 MHz, boost clock is 2418 MHz, and memory runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective data rate. FP16 also matches FP32 at 29.71 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio.

The architectural lineage differs as well. The W7400’s predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, with no successor listed. The GB10’s predecessor is Server Hopper, and its successor is Server Rubin. The GB10 uses a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, while the W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The GB10 has no display outputs beyond a single HDMI, while the W7400 has four DisplayPort 2.1 connections. The GB10 has no power connectors listed, consistent with an IGP form factor, and the W7400 also has no power connectors, likely drawing power from the slot.

The memory types are fundamentally different: GDDR6 for the W7400 versus LPDDR5X for the GB10. The GB10’s 256-bit bus is twice as wide as the W7400’s 128-bit bus, and despite the lower effective memory clock (8.5 Gbps versus 10.8 Gbps), the GB10 achieves higher total bandwidth (273.2 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s) due to the wider interface and larger capacity.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GB10 has an FP32 rating of 29.71 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 7.885 TFLOPS. The GB10 delivers roughly 3.8 times the FP32 throughput.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6, and the GB10 has 128 GB of LPDDR5X. The GB10 offers 16 times the memory capacity.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The W7400 provides 172.8 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The GB10 provides 273.2 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, which is about 1.6 times higher.

Q: Does either GPU support tensor operations?

A: The GB10 has 384 tensor cores. The W7400 lists no tensor cores, so tensor acceleration is not available on that part.

Q: What display outputs are available?

A: The W7400 has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The GB10 has one HDMI output.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GB10 has a TDP of 140 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field.

• Chip: Navi 33 for the W7400, GB20B for the GB10.
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 for the W7400, Blackwell 2.0 for the GB10.
• Process node: 6 nm for the W7400, 5 nm for the GB10. Both use TSMC.
• Transistor count: 13,300 million for the W7400, unknown for the GB10.
• Die size: 204 mm² for the W7400, 382 mm² for the GB10.
• Base clock: 330 MHz for the W7400, 1665 MHz for the GB10.
• Boost clock: 1100 MHz for the W7400, 2418 MHz for the GB10.
• Memory clock: 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) for the W7400, 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) for the GB10.
• Memory size: 8 GB for the W7400, 128 GB for the GB10.
• Memory type: GDDR6 for the W7400, LPDDR5X for the GB10.
• Memory bus width: 128 bit for the W7400, 256 bit for the GB10.
• Memory bandwidth: 172.8 GB/s for the W7400, 273.2 GB/s for the GB10.
• Shading units: 1792 for the W7400, 6144 for the GB10.
• TMUs: 112 for the W7400, 384 for the GB10.
• ROPs: 64 for the W7400, 48 for the GB10.
• RT cores: 28 for the W7400, 48 for the GB10.
• Tensor cores: none for the W7400, 384 for the GB10.
• Pixel rate: 70.40 GPixel/s for the W7400, 116.1 GPixel/s for the GB10.
• Texture rate: 123.2 GTexel/s for the W7400, 928.5 GTexel/s for the GB10.
• FP32: 7.885 TFLOPS for the W7400, 29.71 TFLOPS for the GB10.
• FP16: 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) for the W7400, 29.71 TFLOPS (1:1) for the GB10.
• TDP: 55 W for the W7400, 140 W for the GB10.
• Slot width: Single-slot for the W7400, IGP for the GB10.
• Suggested PSU: 250 W for the W7400, 300 W for the GB10.
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7400, PCIe 5.0 x16 for the GB10.
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1 for the W7400, 1x HDMI for the GB10.
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) for the W7400, N/A for the GB10.
• OpenGL support: 4.6 for the W7400, N/A for the GB10.
• Vulkan support: 1.4 for the W7400, N/A for the GB10.
• Dimensions: 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm for the W7400, 150 mm x 51 mm x 150 mm for the GB10.
• Release date: 2025-08-02 for the W7400, 2025-10-14 for the GB10.
• Predecessor: Radeon Pro Vega for the W7400, Server Hopper for the GB10.
• Successor: none for the W7400, Server Rubin for the GB10.
• Launch MSRP: none for the W7400, 3,999 USD for the GB10.
• Percentile vs all GPUs: 50 for the W7400, 95 for the GB10.
• Average benchmark score: 0 for the W7400, 117,393 for the GB10.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in purpose. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is built for traditional workstation graphics with multiple displays. Its four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, full DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and low 55 W power draw make it suitable for desktop workstation environments where multi-monitor output and standard graphics APIs are required. Its 8 GB memory and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth are modest, and its FP32 performance of 7.885 TFLOPS is sufficient for mid-range professional graphics but far below the GB10.

The NVIDIA GB10 is a server-class processor with 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory, 384 tensor cores, and 29.71 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. Its 95th percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 117,393 place it among high-end accelerators. The lack of DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan support confirms it is not intended for conventional graphics rendering. Its single HDMI output and IGP form factor reinforce that positioning.

For users needing a low-power, multi-display workstation card with modern graphics API support, the W7400 is the appropriate choice. For workloads that demand large memory capacity, tensor core acceleration, and high compute throughput in a server context, the GB10 is the stronger option. The GB10’s launch MSRP is 3,999 USD, which reflects its server-grade positioning. Neither part is a substitute for the other; the specification differences are too broad, and the benchmark data only exists for the GB10. The recorded numbers show that the GB10 is the higher-performing processor by a wide margin, while the W7400 offers a set of features oriented toward client-side graphics.