AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA Jetson T4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and NVIDIA Jetson T4000 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, and the recorded data shows a clear use-case split. The Radeon PRO W7400 is a workstation-oriented graphics card built around the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture. It delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 70.40 GPixel/s pixel throughput, and 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate, all within a 55 W TDP. The Jetson T4000, meanwhile, is an embedded server processor with Blackwell architecture, 64 GB of LPDDR5X memory, and 273.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, but it offers only 4.700 TFLOPS FP32 and a much lower 24.48 GPixel/s pixel rate.

The Radeon PRO W7400 wins in raw graphics throughput. Its pixel rate is 2.9 times higher than the Jetson T4000 (70.40 vs 24.48 GPixel/s), and its texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s outpaces the Jetson's 73.44 GTexel/s by 68%. Its 1792 shading units and 112 TMUs exceed the Jetson's 1536 shaders and 48 TMUs, giving it a structural advantage in rasterization-heavy workloads. The Radeon also has 28 ray accelerators versus the Jetson's 12 RT cores, so ray-traced rendering tasks favor the AMD card. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Jetson lists N/A for all three APIs, making the Radeon the only viable option for traditional PC graphics software.

The Jetson T4000 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. It carries 64 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s, compared to the Radeon's 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus at 172.8 GB/s. That 8x capacity difference is decisive for large-model inference, big datasets, or multi-tenant workloads where fitting data in local memory matters more than pixel throughput. The Jetson also includes 64 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the Radeon PRO W7400. Tensor cores accelerate matrix operations, so the Jetson is the choice for neural network training and inference tasks.

The Jetson has a higher boost clock at 1530 MHz versus the Radeon's 1100 MHz boost, and it uses a newer 5 nm process node compared to the Radeon's 6 nm. However, the Radeon's 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 output is 68% higher than the Jetson's 4.700 TFLOPS, showing that the AMD chip's wider execution resources overcome the clock disadvantage. The Jetson's 90 W TDP is higher than the Radeon's 55 W, but both share the same suggested PSU rating of 250 W.

Architecture Differences

The two chips diverge at nearly every architectural level. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 die, built on TSMC's 6 nm process, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The Jetson T4000 uses the GB10B chip on TSMC's 5 nm process, with an unknown transistor count on a 391 mm² die, making it physically larger despite the newer node. The Radeon's smaller die and higher density reflect a graphics-first design, while the Jetson's larger die likely accommodates the tensor core array and memory controller.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Radeon uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus, achieving 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Jetson uses 64 GB of LPDDR5X with a 256-bit bus, achieving 273.2 GB/s. The Jetson's memory clock is 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) versus the Radeon's 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), so the Radeon has faster per-pin signaling, but the Jetson's wider bus and 8x larger capacity dominate for data-heavy tasks.

Compute resources also differ sharply. The Radeon has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray accelerators. The Jetson has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 12 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores. The Radeon's 64 ROPs deliver 70.40 GPixel/s fill rate, essential for high-resolution rendering, while the Jetson's 16 ROPs cap its pixel output at 24.48 GPixel/s. The Jetson trades rasterization throughput for tensor horsepower, offering 64 tensor cores with no equivalent on the AMD side.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Radeon runs at a 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost, a wide gap that indicates aggressive power management. The Jetson runs at a fixed 1530 MHz base and boost, suggesting a constant-clock design suited for predictable server workloads. The Radeon's FP16 and FP32 both measure 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), meaning it offers no half-precision acceleration. The Jetson also lists FP16 at 4.700 TFLOPS (1:1), so neither card accelerates half-precision beyond its FP32 rate.

Thermal and physical designs are polar opposites. The Radeon is a single-slot card that is 168 mm long, 69 mm tall, and 20 mm wide, with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and no power connectors, drawing all power from the PCIe 4.0 x8 slot. The Jetson is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) module that is 87 mm long, 100 mm tall, and 15 mm wide, with no display outputs at all. It uses a PCIe 5.0 x8 interface and also draws from the slot with no external power connectors. The Radeon is built for workstation integration with monitor connectivity; the Jetson is a compute-only module for embedded or server systems.

API support is another split. The Radeon supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with mainstream graphics software. The Jetson lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, confirming it is not intended for conventional graphics rendering. The Jetson's generation is "Server Blackwell (Bxx)" with a predecessor in "Server Hopper" and a successor in "Server Rubin," placing it in a compute-focused product line. The Radeon's generation is "Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series)" with a predecessor in "Radeon Pro Vega," a workstation lineage.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear selection based on workload type. For rasterization, ray tracing, and standard graphics APIs, the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the only option between the two. Its 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate give it decisive advantages in compute throughput and fill rate. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 means it can run existing software without compatibility layers. Its four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs allow direct monitor connections, and its 55 W TDP makes it easy to integrate into workstations.

For memory-bound compute, particularly neural network workloads, the NVIDIA Jetson T4000 is the stronger pick. Its 64 GB of LPDDR5X memory is 8x the Radeon's 8 GB, and its 273.2 GB/s bandwidth is 58% higher. The 64 tensor cores provide dedicated matrix math acceleration that the Radeon lacks entirely. Its fixed 1530 MHz clock and 90 W TDP suit always-on server deployments. The Jetson carries a launch MSRP of 1,999 USD, while the Radeon has no recorded launch price, so direct cost comparison is not possible from the data.

The Radeon's 50th percentile standing among all GPUs matches the Jetson's 50th percentile, indicating both are mid-pack performers in the broader database. However, their strengths do not overlap. The Radeon wins on every graphics throughput metric: pixel rate (70.40 vs 24.48 GPixel/s), texture rate (123.2 vs 73.44 GTexel/s), FP32 (7.885 vs 4.700 TFLOPS), shading units (1792 vs 1536), TMUs (112 vs 48), and ROPs (64 vs 16). The Jetson wins on memory capacity (64 GB vs 8 GB), bandwidth (273.2 vs 172.8 GB/s), tensor cores (64 vs 0), and bus interface (PCIe 5.0 vs PCIe 4.0).

Neither card suits the other's purpose. The Radeon cannot handle the Jetson's large-memory AI workloads, and the Jetson cannot drive displays or run graphics APIs. The choice hinges entirely on whether the task demands high polygon throughput and pixel fill or large in-memory datasets and tensor acceleration.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA Jetson T4000 delivers 4.700 TFLOPS, making the Radeon approximately 68% faster in single-precision compute.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the Jetson T4000 has 64 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Does the Jetson T4000 support DirectX or OpenGL?

A: No. The recorded data lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan on the Jetson T4000. The Radeon PRO W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA Jetson T4000 has 64 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no tensor core count listed in the data.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Radeon PRO W7400 has a 55 W TDP, and the Jetson T4000 has a 90 W TDP. Both share a 250 W suggested PSU rating.

Q: Can the Jetson T4000 connect to monitors?

A: No. The Jetson T4000 has no display outputs, whereas the Radeon PRO W7400 has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head benchmark list is empty, so the comparison relies on the specification-level scores in the database. The biggest win for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is in pixel throughput. Its 70.40 GPixel/s is 2.9 times the Jetson's 24.48 GPixel/s. That gap translates directly to higher resolution rendering and more anti-aliased pixels per frame.

The Radeon also dominates texture work. Its 123.2 GTexel/s exceeds the Jetson's 73.44 GTexel/s by 49.76 GTexel/s, a 68% advantage. With 112 TMUs versus 48, the Radeon can apply more texture samples per clock, which benefits detailed surface rendering in CAD and DCC applications.

FP32 compute goes to the Radeon as well. At 7.885 TFLOPS, it outperforms the Jetson's 4.700 TFLOPS by 3.185 TFLOPS, a 68% margin. This affects simulation, physics, and any general compute workload that relies on single-precision shader math.

The Jetson T4000's biggest win is memory capacity. Its 64 GB dwarfs the Radeon's 8 GB, an 8x difference. For workloads that must hold large models or datasets in local memory, this is the deciding factor. The Jetson also leads in memory bandwidth at 273.2 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s, a 58% advantage, reducing the time spent moving data between memory and compute units.

Tensor core availability is a categorical win for the Jetson. With 64 tensor cores and no equivalent on the Radeon, the Jetson is the only card in this pair that can accelerate matrix operations in AI frameworks. The Radeon's FP16 rate of 7.885 TFLOPS matches its FP32 rate, meaning it offers no half-precision boost, while the Jetson's 4.700 TFLOPS FP16 also matches its FP32 rate, so neither card gains from mixed-precision training.

The Jetson also wins on bus interface and process node. Its PCIe 5.0 x8 connection doubles the signaling rate of the Radeon's PCIe 4.0 x8, reducing host transfer bottlenecks. Its 5 nm process node is one generation ahead of the Radeon's 6 nm, though the Radeon compensates with a higher transistor density of 65.2M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the Jetson at 1530 MHz for both base and boost, versus the Radeon's 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost. The Radeon's boost clock is 430 MHz lower than the Jetson's constant clock, but its wider execution resources still produce higher overall throughput.

In physical terms, the Radeon is the longer card at 168 mm versus the Jetson's 87 mm, but the Jetson is taller at 100 mm versus 69 mm. Both are similar in width, 20 mm for the Radeon and 15 mm for the Jetson. The Radeon fits standard single-slot workstation slots, while the Jetson's IGP form factor suits embedded boards.

The production status for both is listed as Active. The Radeon's release date is 2025-08-02, and the Jetson's is 2026-01-04, making the Jetson the newer product by several months. The Radeon's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, while the Jetson's predecessor is Server Hopper and its successor is Server Rubin, confirming the Jetson sits in an active server product cycle.