AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for this pairing. Both the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation have an average benchmark score of zero, and the wins counter shows zero for each side. The absence of measured data means direct performance comparisons must be derived entirely from the specification sheets and the architectural characteristics of each part.

What the available data does establish is that both GPUs occupy the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, placing them at the midpoint of the overall performance distribution. The AMD part delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA part delivers 10.37 TFLOPS. That difference of roughly 2.5 TFLOPS represents a 31.5% advantage for the NVIDIA GPU in raw floating-point throughput. The NVIDIA part also leads in pixel throughput at 97.20 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s for AMD, a 38% margin. Texture rate favors NVIDIA as well, at 162.0 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s, a 31.4% lead.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 counters with a memory bandwidth advantage despite having a narrower bus. Its 128-bit interface and 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth exceed the 96-bit interface and 192.0 GB/s of the NVIDIA part are not directly comparable, the AMD figure is 172.8 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s for NVIDIA, meaning NVIDIA retains the bandwidth lead by 11.1%. AMD does hold a capacity advantage with 8 GB of GDDR6 versus 6 GB on the NVIDIA side. The AMD part also has more render output units at 64 versus 48, and more texture mapping units at 112 versus 80, though the NVIDIA part has more shading units at 2560 versus 1792 and more ray tracing cores at 28 versus 20 on AMD, while NVIDIA has 20 RT cores and 80 tensor cores.

Clock speeds favor NVIDIA decisively. The base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 2025 MHz on the RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation compare to 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost on the Radeon PRO W7400. The NVIDIA part also runs its memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) on the AMD card. The transistor counts differ substantially: NVIDIA packs 18,900 million transistors into a 159 mm² die, while AMD uses 13,300 million transistors across a 204 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 118.9M per mm² for NVIDIA and 65.2M per mm² for AMD.

Neither part shows any recorded wins in the head-to-head benchmark table. The verdict on measured performance is therefore inconclusive from direct testing, but the theoretical peak figures give NVIDIA the edge in compute throughput, rasterization rates, and memory bandwidth, while AMD offers double the memory capacity, which may matter in workloads that exceed 6 GB of usage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation reaches 10.37 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is approximately 31.5% ahead in this metric.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: AMD uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA uses 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. NVIDIA has higher bandwidth by 11.1%, but AMD has 2 GB more capacity.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and a suggested power supply of 250 W. The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation has a TDP of 35 W and no suggested power supply listed. Neither requires external power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has higher pixel and texture fill rates?

A: NVIDIA leads in both: 97.20 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s for pixel rate, and 162.0 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s for texture rate. The NVIDIA advantages are 38% and 31.4%, respectively.

Q: What process nodes do the two GPUs use?

A: AMD uses a 6 nm process at TSMC. NVIDIA uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. NVIDIA also achieves higher transistor density at 118.9M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm² for AMD.

Q: How do the GPU architectures differ in compute features?

A: AMD uses RDNA 3.0 architecture with 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. NVIDIA uses Ada Lovelace architecture with 2560 shading units, 80 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 20 ray tracing cores, and 80 tensor cores. Only NVIDIA has tensor cores.

The Verdict

The data shows two GPUs aimed at different physical and performance envelopes. The NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation is an integrated graphics processor with a 35 W TDP, designed for portable devices where the display outputs are device-dependent. Its specifications indicate higher raw compute: 10.37 TFLOPS FP32, 97.20 GPixel/s, 162.0 GTexel/s, and 192.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It also carries 80 tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely. For workloads that leverage FP32 throughput, tensor operations, or NVIDIA's ray tracing pipeline, the recorded specifications favor this part.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a single-slot, 55 W add-in card with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. It provides 8 GB of memory versus 6 GB on the NVIDIA part, which is a 33% capacity increase. Its 172.8 GB/s bandwidth is lower, but the larger frame buffer can hold bigger datasets or textures before spilling to system memory. The AMD part also has more ROPs (64 versus 48) and more TMUs (112 versus 80), though lower clock speeds reduce the realized fill rates.

The choice depends on the deployment scenario. For a portable workstation with tight power limits and a need for tensor core acceleration, the RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation offers the higher theoretical throughput. For a desktop workstation requiring multiple DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and more memory capacity, the Radeon PRO W7400 provides those features at a higher power draw. The absence of measured benchmark scores means neither GPU can be declared a winner from recorded performance data; the specification sheets define the boundaries of capability, and the 50th percentile ranking for both suggests they sit at similar overall performance tiers.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture and the codename Hotpink Bonefish, while the NVIDIA RTX 1000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture. The AMD part belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation, and the NVIDIA part belongs to the Ada-MW (x000A) generation. AMD's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, while NVIDIA's predecessor is the Ampere-MW and its successor is the Blackwell-MW. The AMD card is listed as Active in production status with a release date in 2025, while the NVIDIA part is also Active with a release date in 2024.

Process technology differs: AMD uses a 6 nm TSMC process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving 65.2M transistors per mm². NVIDIA uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, giving 118.9M transistors per mm². Clock speeds diverge sharply: AMD runs at 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost, while NVIDIA runs at 1485 MHz base and 2025 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: AMD's memory runs at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) on the NVIDIA part.

Memory configuration differs in size (8 GB versus 6 GB), bus width (128 bit versus 96 bit), and bandwidth (172.8 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s). Compute unit counts differ: 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores on AMD; 2560 shading units, 80 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 20 RT cores, and 80 tensor cores on NVIDIA. Power envelopes differ at 55 W versus 35 W TDP. Physical form factors differ: AMD is single-slot with dimensions of 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width; NVIDIA is an IGP with no recorded dimensions. Display outputs differ: AMD has 4x DisplayPort 2.1, while NVIDIA is listed as Portable Device Dependent. The suggested power supply is 250 W for AMD and not listed for NVIDIA. Both use PCIe 4.0 x8 interfaces. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. AMD implements RDNA 3.0 on a 6 nm TSMC node, while NVIDIA implements Ada Lovelace on a 5 nm TSMC node. The smaller node allows NVIDIA to fit 18,900 million transistors into a smaller die of 159 mm², achieving a density of 118.9M per mm². AMD fits 13,300 million transistors into 204 mm², yielding 65.2M per mm². The difference in transistor density is 82.4% in NVIDIA's favor.

The compute layout differs in both quantity and type. AMD provides 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. NVIDIA provides 2560 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. AMD has more TMUs and ROPs, while NVIDIA has more shading units. Ray tracing hardware differs in count: AMD has 28 RT cores, NVIDIA has 20 RT cores. Tensor cores appear only on the NVIDIA part, with 80 of them, and AMD has no equivalent hardware listed. The presence of tensor cores indicates NVIDIA's architecture carries dedicated hardware for matrix operations that AMD's design lacks.

Memory architecture also differs. AMD uses a 128-bit GDDR6 bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth and 8 GB capacity. NVIDIA uses a 96-bit GDDR6 bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth and 6 GB capacity. The narrower bus on NVIDIA achieves higher bandwidth due to a faster memory clock of 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) on AMD. The FP16 and FP32 throughput ratios are identical at 1:1 for both parts, meaning neither GPU uses a split-rate FP16 path.

The power delivery architecture reflects the different physical formats. AMD is a single-slot card drawing up to 55 W with no power connectors required and a 250 W suggested power supply. NVIDIA is an IGP drawing 35 W with no power connectors and no suggested power supply, consistent with integration into a portable device. The display output architecture follows the same pattern: AMD provides four dedicated DisplayPort 2.1 outputs for external displays, while NVIDIA's outputs are dependent on the host portable device. The clock behavior also reflects the thermal and power constraints: NVIDIA boosts to 2025 MHz from a 1485 MHz base, while AMD boosts to 1100 MHz from a 330 MHz base, a much lower clock range that likely reflects a different power management strategy.