AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a stark contrast between these two GPUs, though the benchmark suite returned no direct head-to-head scores for this pairing. Instead, the database places both at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of zero for each. This means the comparison must rely on the architectural and specification data available, which reveals an enormous performance gulf.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE delivers 66.94 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, a figure that is 8.5 times higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. In raw shader throughput, the RTX 5090 SE's 14,080 shading units dwarf the W7400's 1,792 units. The texture rate tells a similar story: the RTX 5090 SE processes 1,045.9 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s on the AMD card, an 8.5-fold advantage. Pixel throughput shows a 5.4x gap, with the NVIDIA card hitting 380.3 GPixel/s compared to 70.40 GPixel/s on the AMD side.

Memory bandwidth is another decisive differentiator. The RTX 5090 SE moves data at 1.34 TB/s over a 384-bit GDDR7 interface, while the W7400 manages 172.8 GB/s across a 128-bit GDDR6 bus. That is a 7.75x bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA. The RTX 5090 SE also carries 24 GB of VRAM versus 8 GB on the AMD card, a 3x capacity difference that matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Clock speeds further widen the gap. The RTX 5090 SE boosts to 2377 MHz, more than double the W7400's 1100 MHz boost clock. The base clocks differ by a factor of 5.3, with NVIDIA at 1740 MHz and AMD at 330 MHz. Even the memory clock shows a 2.6x effective speed difference: 28 Gbps versus 10.8 Gbps.

Neither GPU has recorded benchmark wins in this database, and the winsA/winsB counters both stand at zero. The percentile rankings are identical at 50, which reflects the absence of actual benchmark data rather than comparable performance. Based on the specification deltas, the RTX 5090 SE would dominate every compute and graphics workload where both cards could operate, though the W7400's drastically lower power draw and smaller footprint position it for entirely different deployment scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and target separate market segments. AMD's Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation, built on a 6 nm TSMC process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The transistor density measures 65.2 million per square millimeter.

NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 5090 SE uses the GB202 chip on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture, part of the GeForce 50-series. It is fabricated on a 5 nm TSMC process with 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 122.9 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip packs 6.9 times more transistors on a 3.7 times larger die, with nearly double the density.

The compute pipelines differ fundamentally. AMD's card has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. It also includes 28 ray tracing cores but no dedicated tensor cores. The RTX 5090 SE offers 14,080 shading units, 440 TMUs, 160 ROPs, 110 ray tracing cores, and 440 tensor cores. The tensor core presence on NVIDIA hardware enables AI acceleration that AMD's card cannot match, a critical distinction for modern workloads involving neural networks or DLSS-style upscaling.

Memory subsystems diverge completely. The W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus, while the RTX 5090 SE uses 24 GB of GDDR7 with a 384-bit bus. The memory clock reads 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) on AMD versus 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) on NVIDIA. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical.

Power delivery and physical design reflect the performance gap. The W7400 draws a 55 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The RTX 5090 SE has a 500 W TDP, uses a single 16-pin connector, and recommends a 900 W PSU. The AMD card fits in a single slot at 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width. The NVIDIA card is dual-slot, measuring 267 mm by 111 mm by 40 mm. Bus interfaces also differ: PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD versus PCIe 5.0 x16 for NVIDIA.

The NVIDIA card supports 1x HDMI 2.1b and 3x DisplayPort 2.1b outputs. AMD offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. Neither card has a direct predecessor listed in this data, though the W7400's predecessor is listed as Radeon Pro Vega, and the RTX 5090 SE's predecessor is GeForce 40. The RTX 5090 SE has a successor listed as GeForce 60, while the W7400 has none listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W7400 wins in deployment flexibility and power efficiency. Its 55 W TDP means it can run in systems with a 250 W PSU, requires no auxiliary power connectors, and fits in a single slot. The 168 mm length and 69 mm height make it suitable for compact chassis where the RTX 5090 SE's 267 mm length and dual-slot footprint would not fit. For workstation environments with dense multi-GPU configurations or limited physical space, the W7400's small form factor and low power draw are decisive advantages.

The W7400 also wins on display output flexibility for multi-monitor setups. It provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, one more than the RTX 5090 SE's three DisplayPort 2.1b plus one HDMI 2.1b. For users running four identical displays, the AMD card avoids adapter requirements. Its 8 GB VRAM and 128-bit bus are sufficient for typical professional 2D workflows, office productivity, or light 3D visualization where the 172.8 GB/s bandwidth does not bottleneck.

The RTX 5090 SE wins in every raw performance category. Its 66.94 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 1.34 TB/s memory bandwidth, and 24 GB VRAM make it the clear choice for heavy 3D rendering, large-scale simulation, AI inference, and high-resolution texture workloads. The 440 tensor cores enable hardware-accelerated AI features that the W7400 lacks entirely. The 110 ray tracing cores versus 28 on AMD mean substantially faster ray-traced scenes. The 500 W TDP and 900 W PSU recommendation are acceptable trade-offs for users who need maximum compute density.

The memory clock difference of 28 Gbps versus 10.8 Gbps effective translates directly to faster data movement for the NVIDIA card. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface provides double the bandwidth of the W7400's PCIe 4.0 x8 connection, reducing transfer bottlenecks for large datasets. The 3x VRAM capacity difference allows the RTX 5090 SE to hold significantly larger models and scene graphs in memory without spilling to system RAM.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE delivers 66.94 TFLOPS, which is 8.5 times the 7.885 TFLOPS of the AMD Radeon PRO W7400.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX 5090 SE has 24 GB of GDDR7 memory, while the W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6. This is a 3x capacity advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: Which card requires less power?

A: The AMD W7400 has a 55 W TDP and needs no power connectors, with a 250 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA RTX 5090 SE has a 500 W TDP, requires a 16-pin connector, and suggests a 900 W PSU.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the RTX 5090 SE has 440 tensor cores. The W7400 has no tensor cores listed.

Q: What are the physical size differences?

A: The W7400 is 168 mm long, 69 mm high, and 20 mm wide, fitting in a single slot. The RTX 5090 SE is 267 mm long, 111 mm high, and 40 mm wide, occupying a dual-slot design.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7400 | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 SE |

|----------------|----------------------|---------------------------|

| Chip | Navi 33 | GB202 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Blackwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 92,200 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 750 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 122.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 330 MHz | 1740 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 2377 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (28 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR7 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 1.34 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 14080 |

| TMUs | 112 | 440 |

| ROPs | 64 | 160 |

| RT Cores | 28 | 110 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 440 |

| Pixel Rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 380.3 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 123.2 GTexel/s | 1,045.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.885 TFLOPS | 66.94 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) | 66.94 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 500 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 900 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | 20 mm (0.8 inches) | 40 mm (1.6 inches) |

| Release Date | 2025-08-02 | 2025-12-31 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | GeForce 40 |

| Successor | None | GeForce 60 |

| Launch MSRP | None | 1,499 USD |