AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA N1 20SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the NVIDIA N1 20SM. Both products hold a 50th percentile position among all GPUs in the database, and neither has an average benchmark score recorded. The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, and neither product registers a win count in direct competition.

What the data does provide is a clear contrast in raw compute specifications. The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 52.3% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. This advantage extends to texture processing, where the NVIDIA part reaches 375.4 GTexel/s compared to 123.2 GTexel/s on the AMD card. That represents a 3.05x gap in texture fill rate, a substantial margin for any workload that stresses texture-bound rendering.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 counters with a higher pixel throughput. Its 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate exceeds the NVIDIA N1 20SM's 56.30 GPixel/s by 25.0%. This indicates the AMD card can resolve and output pixels at a faster pace, which matters for high-resolution framebuffer operations and traditional rasterization workloads at elevated display resolutions.

Memory bandwidth also favors the NVIDIA part. The N1 20SM provides 273.2 GB/s across a 256-bit LPDDR5X bus, while the Radeon PRO W7400 offers 172.8 GB/s over a 128-bit GDDR6 interface. The NVIDIA solution's bandwidth advantage measures 58.1%, a meaningful lead for large dataset transfers and memory-intensive compute tasks.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM further dominates in raw shader resources. It packs 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 80 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 fields 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 28 ray tracing cores, and no dedicated tensor core array. The shader unit count difference works out to 42.9% more on the NVIDIA side, while the TMU gap sits at 42.9% as well.

Clock behavior presents an unusual split. The NVIDIA N1 20SM shows a base clock of 741 MHz and a boost clock of 2346 MHz, a 3.17x boost multiplier. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 lists a 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost, a 3.33x multiplier, but both its base and boost clocks are substantially lower in absolute terms. The NVIDIA part's boost clock is 2.13x higher than the AMD card's boost clock.

FP16 performance mirrors FP32 on both products. Each delivers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning the NVIDIA N1 20SM provides 12.01 TFLOPS of FP16 throughput and the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 offers 7.885 TFLOPS. This parity between FP32 and FP16 suggests neither architecture relies on dedicated half-precision paths, instead processing both at the same rate.

The overall picture from the specifications is that the NVIDIA N1 20SM holds decisive leads in compute throughput, texture rate, memory bandwidth, and shader resources, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins only in pixel fill rate among the major performance metrics.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM delivers 12.01 TFLOPS of FP32, which is 52.3% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS.

Q: How do the two compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM provides 128 GB of LPDDR5X memory with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth over a 256-bit bus. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth over a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA part leads in both capacity and bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU offers more texture mapping units?

A: The NVIDIA N1 20SM has 160 TMUs, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 112 TMUs. That is a 42.9% advantage for the NVIDIA part in texture processing resources.

Q: Does the AMD card have a pixel fill rate advantage?

A: Yes. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 achieves 70.40 GPixel/s, which is 25.0% higher than the NVIDIA N1 20SM's 56.30 GPixel/s.

Q: What ray tracing resources does each GPU include?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 includes 28 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA N1 20SM includes 20 ray tracing cores. AMD has 40.0% more dedicated ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the boost clocks for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 boosts to 1100 MHz, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM boosts to 2346 MHz. The NVIDIA part's boost clock is 2.13x higher.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA N1 20SM wins in nearly every compute-heavy category. Its 12.01 TFLOPS FP32 output and matching FP16 throughput position it ahead for general-purpose GPU compute, scientific simulation, and any workload that scales with raw floating-point operations. The 375.4 GTexel/s texture rate makes it the stronger choice for texture-intensive rendering pipelines, while the 273.2 GB/s memory bandwidth supports large working sets and data-parallel tasks. The 2560 shading units and 160 TMUs provide a wide execution width for shader-heavy applications. The 80 tensor cores give it a distinct advantage for AI inference and matrix operations, capabilities the AMD part lacks entirely.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in pixel throughput. Its 70.40 GPixel/s rate exceeds the NVIDIA part by 25.0%, which translates to faster rasterization of geometric primitives and higher fill-limited rendering performance at high resolutions. The 28 ray tracing cores exceed the NVIDIA part's 20, so ray-traced workloads that rely on dedicated RT hardware may see a relative benefit on the AMD side. The AMD card also operates at a 55 W TDP, a notably low power draw for a discrete GPU, and requires only a 250 W suggested PSU, making it the more power-conscious option for constrained systems.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM's 128 GB memory capacity dwarfs the AMD card's 8 GB, making it the obvious choice for large model inference, massive dataset processing, and applications that need to keep substantial data resident in GPU memory. The AMD card's 8 GB is more suited to traditional workstation graphics workloads with moderate memory footprints.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 supports 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, enabling multi-display configurations with modern connectivity. The NVIDIA N1 20SM provides a single HDMI output, which limits its display flexibility. For multi-monitor professional setups, the AMD card has the clear advantage in output options.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a single-slot card with no external power connectors and a 168 mm length. The NVIDIA N1 20SM is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no dimensions listed, meaning it occupies no expansion slot and requires no discrete card space. For compact or embedded systems, the NVIDIA IGP's form factor wins, while the AMD card suits traditional expansion-slot installations.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every major specification category. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses a 6 nm process node, while the NVIDIA N1 20SM uses a 5 nm node. Both are fabricated by TSMC. The AMD chip, Navi 33, contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die with a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The NVIDIA chip, GB20B, has an unknown transistor count on a 382 mm² die with no density figure recorded.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The AMD card has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks also differ: the AMD card runs at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA part runs at 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective).

Compute resources show clear separation. The AMD card has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores. The NVIDIA part has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, 24 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores. The AMD part has no tensor cores; the NVIDIA part has no ROP advantage, trailing at 24 ROPs versus 64.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The AMD card's base clock is 330 MHz and boost is 1100 MHz. The NVIDIA part's base is 741 MHz and boost is 2346 MHz. The AMD card's memory clock is 1350 MHz, while the NVIDIA part's is 1067 MHz.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The AMD card has a 55 W TDP, a single-slot form factor, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA part has an unknown TDP, an IGP form factor, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The AMD card measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The NVIDIA part has no dimensions recorded.

Bus interfaces differ: the AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 5.0 x16. Display outputs show the AMD card with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 and the NVIDIA part with 1x HDMI. API support also diverges completely: the AMD card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA part lists N/A for all three APIs.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 belongs to the RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, within the Radeon Pro Navi generation. It is the successor to the Radeon Pro Vega line. The NVIDIA N1 20SM uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB20B chip, part of the Blackwell IGP (N1x) generation.

The manufacturing process differs: AMD uses a 6 nm TSMC node, while NVIDIA uses a 5 nm TSMC node. Die size also differs, with the NVIDIA chip at 382 mm² versus 204 mm² for the AMD chip. The AMD chip's transistor count is 13,300 million, while the NVIDIA chip's transistor count is unknown.

The AMD architecture emphasizes a balanced workstation feature set with DirectX 12 Ultimate support, which includes hardware ray tracing via 28 RT cores. The NVIDIA architecture includes 80 tensor cores, a feature absent from the AMD part, suggesting a design focus on AI and matrix computation. The NVIDIA part's LPDDR5X memory with 128 GB capacity indicates a unified memory architecture typical of integrated processors, whereas the AMD card uses discrete GDDR6 memory.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM's API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, which sets it apart from the AMD card's full API stack. This suggests the NVIDIA part may target specialized or embedded workloads rather than general graphics APIs.

The AMD card's release date is recorded as 2025-08-02, while the NVIDIA part's release date is 2026-05-31. The AMD card has a predecessor, the Radeon Pro Vega, while the NVIDIA part has no predecessor listed. Neither has a successor.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that the NVIDIA N1 20SM is the stronger compute processor by a wide margin. Its 12.01 TFLOPS FP32, 375.4 GTexel/s texture rate, 273.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, 128 GB capacity, and 80 tensor cores give it decisive advantages in raw throughput, memory-bound tasks, and AI workloads. The 52.3% FP32 lead and 3.05x texture rate advantage are substantial enough to define the performance hierarchy between these two parts.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the better choice for pixel-bound rasterization and traditional graphics output. Its 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate is 25.0% higher than the NVIDIA part's 56.30 GPixel/s, and its 64 ROPs dwarf the NVIDIA part's 24. The 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs provide far more display connectivity than the single HDMI on the NVIDIA part. The 55 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU also make it the lower-power discrete option.

For ray tracing, the AMD card's 28 RT cores exceed the NVIDIA part's 20 by 40.0%, though neither product records direct benchmark scores to quantify real-world ray tracing performance. The AMD card's support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 gives it broad API compatibility, whereas the NVIDIA part lists no API support.

The NVIDIA N1 20SM suits workloads that demand maximum compute throughput, large memory capacity, and tensor core acceleration. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 suits systems that need high pixel fill rates, multi-display output, low power consumption, and full graphics API support. The data shows a clear division: NVIDIA leads in compute, AMD leads in pixel output and connectivity. Each buyer's choice depends on which set of metrics matters more for the intended workload.