AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents two fundamentally different GPU designs, each aimed at a distinct workload environment. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a professional graphics card with a 55 W power target, a single-slot footprint, and four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, positioning it for multi-display workstation setups. The NVIDIA N1 16SM is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 128 GB memory pool, a 256-bit bus, and a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, targeting a different segment entirely.

Benchmark results, as recorded in the database, show both parts at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, with zero benchmark scores and zero wins in head-to-head comparisons. This means the quantitative performance data does not favor either product directly. The decision hinges on the architectural and specification differences. The AMD part delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 with 8 GB GDDR6, while the NVIDIA part delivers 9.609 TFLOPS FP32 with 128 GB LPDDR5X. For compute throughput, the NVIDIA N1 16SM holds a clear lead in raw FP32 and FP16 (both 9.609 TFLOPS). For rasterization throughput, the AMD part has a higher pixel rate at 70.40 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s, though the NVIDIA part dominates texture rate at 300.3 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s.

The data suggests the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 suits conventional workstation graphics tasks, display output, and power-constrained environments. The NVIDIA N1 16SM suits memory-intensive compute workloads, large dataset handling, and integrated systems where the GPU shares the system. Neither part shows a clear win in the existing benchmark records, so the choice is driven by the system form factor, memory capacity needs, and API support requirements.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use different process nodes, architectures, and memory technologies. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip on a 6 nm TSMC process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip on a 5 nm TSMC process with a 382 mm² die and unknown transistor count. The smaller node gives the NVIDIA part a potential density advantage, though the die is larger.

The AMD architecture is RDNA 3.0, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series). The NVIDIA architecture is Blackwell 2.0, part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation. These are different design philosophies: RDNA 3.0 is a discrete GPU architecture optimized for rendering, while Blackwell 2.0 in an IGP context emphasizes integration and unified memory.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The AMD part uses 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part uses 128 GB LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, delivering 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA memory capacity is 16 times larger, and bandwidth is about 58% higher. This is the most striking architectural difference, pointing to different workload targets.

Compute resources also differ. The AMD part has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA part has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 16 ray tracing cores, and 64 tensor cores. The NVIDIA part has more shading units and TMUs but fewer ROPs. The tensor core presence on the NVIDIA part indicates AI acceleration capability, which the AMD part lacks in the recorded data.

Clock behavior differs. The AMD part runs at a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, with memory at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA part runs at a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz, with memory at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA boost clock is more than double the AMD boost clock.

API support is a major differentiator. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it may not support standard graphics APIs in the same way, or the data is incomplete.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in pixel fill rate, delivering 70.40 GPixel/s versus the NVIDIA N1 16SM's 56.30 GPixel/s. This indicates a 25% advantage in pixel throughput, which benefits high-resolution 2D rendering, multi-display output, and traditional rasterization workloads. The AMD part also has more ROPs (64 versus 24), which supports this advantage.

The AMD part wins on power efficiency per the recorded 55 W TDP, though the NVIDIA TDP is unknown. The AMD part draws power from the slot with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA part is an IGP with unknown power draw. The AMD single-slot design, 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width, makes it a compact discrete card. The NVIDIA part has no recorded dimensions, consistent with an integrated design.

The AMD part wins on display output, with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 versus 1x HDMI on the NVIDIA part. For multi-monitor professional work, the AMD part provides more connectivity options and newer DisplayPort standard support.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM wins on texture rate, delivering 300.3 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, a 2.44 times advantage. This benefits texture-heavy workloads, such as 3D modeling, scientific visualization, and procedural generation. The NVIDIA part also has more TMUs (128 versus 112), supporting this lead.

The NVIDIA part wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. At 128 GB versus 8 GB, the NVIDIA part can hold datasets 16 times larger. Bandwidth at 273.2 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s is a 58% advantage. For workloads with large working sets, such as AI inference, data analytics, or in-memory databases, the NVIDIA part is clearly superior.

The NVIDIA part wins on FP32 and FP16 compute, at 9.609 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS, a 21.9% advantage. This translates to faster general compute and machine learning operations. The NVIDIA part also has 64 tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks, indicating AI-specific acceleration.

The NVIDIA part wins on bus interface, using PCIe 5.0 x16 versus the AMD PCIe 4.0 x8. This gives the NVIDIA part potentially higher host transfer bandwidth, though the AMD part's 8 GB memory may not require as much.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS FP32, which is 21.9% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part also matches this in FP16, at 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1).

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA part offers 16 times the capacity and 58% more bandwidth (273.2 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s).

Q: Which GPU supports more display outputs?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 supports 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The NVIDIA N1 16SM supports 1x HDMI output. The AMD part is designed for multi-display configurations, while the NVIDIA part is limited to a single output.

Q: What are the API support differences?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA N1 16SM lists N/A for these APIs in the database, indicating no standard graphics API support is recorded.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 achieves 70.40 GPixel/s, which is 25% higher than the NVIDIA N1 16SM's 56.30 GPixel/s. The AMD part also has 64 ROPs versus 24 ROPs on the NVIDIA part.

Q: Which GPU has higher texture fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM achieves 300.3 GTexel/s, which is 2.44 times higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7400's 123.2 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part also has 128 TMUs versus 112 TMUs on the AMD part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no head-to-head benchmark scores for these two GPUs. The winsA and winsB fields are both 0, and the headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty. This means no direct performance comparison data exists in the recorded measurements. The analysis must rely on the specification-level differences.

The largest compute advantage belongs to the NVIDIA N1 16SM. Its FP32 output of 9.609 TFLOPS is 1.724 TFLOPS higher than the AMD part's 7.885 TFLOPS, a 21.9% lead. The same margin applies to FP16, since both parts run at 1:1 ratio. This is a significant edge for general compute, simulation, and AI workloads.

The largest texture advantage also belongs to the NVIDIA part. At 300.3 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, the NVIDIA part is 177.1 GTexel/s faster, a 143.8% lead. This suggests the NVIDIA part handles texture-heavy rendering much better, despite having fewer ROPs.

The AMD part wins the pixel rate comparison. At 70.40 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s, the AMD part is 14.1 GPixel/s faster, a 25% lead. Combined with 64 ROPs, this indicates the AMD part is better suited for final pixel output and display composition.

Memory bandwidth favors the NVIDIA part by 100.4 GB/s (273.2 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s), a 58.1% advantage. Memory capacity favors the NVIDIA part by 120 GB (128 GB versus 8 GB), a 1500% advantage. These are the most extreme differences in the dataset.

Clock speeds show the NVIDIA part boosting to 2346 MHz versus 1100 MHz on the AMD part, a 113.3% higher boost clock. Base clocks are 741 MHz versus 330 MHz, a 124.5% higher base clock. The NVIDIA part also has a higher memory clock at 1067 MHz versus 1350 MHz, though the AMD memory clock is higher in raw MHz, the effective bandwidth tells the real story (172.8 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s).

The process node favors the NVIDIA part at 5 nm versus 6 nm, though the die size is larger at 382 mm² versus 204 mm². The AMD part has a known transistor count of 13,300 million, while the NVIDIA transistor count is unknown.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs, based on the recorded data:

• Chip: AMD Navi 33 versus NVIDIA GB20B
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 versus Blackwell 2.0
• Codename: Hotpink Bonefish versus none recorded
• Generation: Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) versus Blackwell IGP (N1x)
• Process Node: 6 nm versus 5 nm
• Die Size: 204 mm² versus 382 mm²
• Transistors: 13,300 million versus unknown
• Transistor Density: 65.2M / mm² versus none recorded
• Base Clock: 330 MHz versus 741 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1100 MHz versus 2346 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1350 MHz 10.8 Gbps effective versus 1067 MHz 8.5 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 8 GB versus 128 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR6 versus LPDDR5X
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 172.8 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s
• Shading Units: 1792 versus 2048
• TMUs: 112 versus 128
• ROPs: 64 versus 24
• RT Cores: 28 versus 16
• Tensor Cores: none recorded versus 64
• Pixel Rate: 70.40 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 123.2 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s
• FP32: 7.885 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS
• FP16: 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 55 W versus unknown
• Slot Width: Single-slot versus IGP
• Power Connectors: None versus None
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus none recorded
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1 versus 1x HDMI
• DirectX: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus N/A
• OpenGL: 4.6 versus N/A
• Vulkan: 1.4 versus N/A
• Dimensions: 168 mm length, 69 mm height, 20 mm width versus none recorded
• Release Date: 2025-08-02 versus 2026-05-31
• Predecessor: Radeon Pro Vega versus none recorded