AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The AMD card has 28 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA card has 24 ray tracing cores and 96 tensor cores.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare between the two cards?

A: Both cards have 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth with memory clocked at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth with memory clocked at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), giving it a 48% bandwidth advantage.

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has higher raw compute throughput. It delivers 12.35 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 7.885 TFLOPS for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400. The NVIDIA card also delivers 12.35 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, while the AMD card matches its FP32 rate at 7.885 TFLOPS FP16.

Q: What are the power and physical form factor differences?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a 55 W TDP, is single-slot, measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, and requires no power connectors. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has a 50 W TDP, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor, and has no physical dimensions listed.

Q: How do the display outputs differ between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating its output configuration depends on the portable device it is embedded into.

Q: What are the PCIe interface specifications for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, providing double the lane count for data transfer.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear split between the two cards based on workload type. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation wins decisively in raw compute and memory bandwidth scenarios. Its FP32 throughput of 12.35 TFLOPS is 56.6% higher than the AMD card's 7.885 TFLOPS. This gives it a substantial lead in general-purpose compute tasks, simulation workloads, and any application that scales with shader throughput.

The NVIDIA card also dominates in texture-heavy workloads. Its texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s is 56.7% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7400's 123.2 GTexel/s. This advantage matters for applications with high texel-fetch demands, such as certain rendering pipelines and image processing tasks.

Memory bandwidth is another clear win for NVIDIA. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 256.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s for the AMD card, a 48.1% difference. This benefits bandwidth-sensitive workloads like large dataset manipulation, high-resolution texture streaming, and compute kernels with poor data locality.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in specific structural areas. It has 112 texture mapping units (TMUs) versus 96 for the NVIDIA card, a 16.7% advantage in TMU count. It also has 64 raster output units (ROPs) versus 48 for NVIDIA, a 33.3% advantage in ROP count. These differences favor AMD in certain fill-rate-bound scenarios.

However, the pixel rate data complicates this picture. The NVIDIA card achieves 96.48 GPixel/s, while the AMD card achieves 70.40 GPixel/s. Despite having fewer ROPs, NVIDIA's higher clock speeds deliver 37% more pixel throughput. The AMD card's ROP advantage does not translate into a pixel rate win.

The AMD card also wins on transistor density efficiency. Its die size is 204 mm² with 13,300 million transistors, yielding 65.2M transistors per mm². The NVIDIA card packs 18,900 million transistors into a smaller 159 mm² die, achieving 118.9M transistors per mm². This indicates NVIDIA's 5 nm process allows for much higher density, but AMD's larger die provides more physical area for its ROP and TMU arrays.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is substantial. AMD uses the Navi 33 chip based on RDNA 3.0, with the codename "Hotpink Bonefish." This is part of the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. NVIDIA uses the AD107 chip based on Ada Lovelace, part of the GeForce 20-series family, with the generation listed as "Ada-MW."

The manufacturing processes differ. AMD's card is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while NVIDIA's card uses a 5 nm process at the same foundry. This process gap explains part of the transistor density difference: AMD's chip has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die (65.2M per mm²), while NVIDIA's chip has 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die (118.9M per mm²).

Shader and compute unit configurations diverge sharply. The AMD card has 1,792 shading units, while the NVIDIA card has 3,072 shading units, a 71.4% advantage for NVIDIA. The AMD card has 112 TMUs and 64 ROPs, while the NVIDIA card has 96 TMUs and 48 ROPs, giving AMD the structural advantage in those specific units.

Ray tracing and tensor capabilities differ. The AMD card has 28 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The NVIDIA card has 24 ray tracing cores and 96 tensor cores. The presence of tensor cores on the NVIDIA card enables AI-accelerated workloads that the AMD card cannot hardware-accelerate in the same way.

Clock behavior also differs significantly. The AMD card has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The NVIDIA card has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 2010 MHz. NVIDIA's boost clock is 82.7% higher than AMD's, which drives its higher throughput despite having fewer ROPs.

Both cards support identical API feature sets: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The production status for both is listed as "Active." The AMD card's predecessor is listed as Radeon Pro Vega, while the NVIDIA card's predecessor is Ampere-MW and its successor is Blackwell-MW.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows several specification differences between the two cards. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 2010 MHz. The memory clock for AMD is 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), while NVIDIA's is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Memory bandwidth differs: AMD delivers 172.8 GB/s, NVIDIA delivers 256.0 GB/s. Shading units: AMD has 1,792, NVIDIA has 3,072. TMUs: AMD has 112, NVIDIA has 96. ROPs: AMD has 64, NVIDIA has 48. Ray tracing cores: AMD has 28, NVIDIA has 24. Tensor cores: AMD has none, NVIDIA has 96.

Pixel rate: AMD achieves 70.40 GPixel/s, NVIDIA achieves 96.48 GPixel/s. Texture rate: AMD achieves 123.2 GTexel/s, NVIDIA achieves 193.0 GTexel/s. FP32 and FP16 performance: AMD delivers 7.885 TFLOPS for both, NVIDIA delivers 12.35 TFLOPS for both.

TDP: AMD is 55 W, NVIDIA is 50 W. Slot width: AMD is single-slot, NVIDIA is IGP. Power connectors: both are "None." Suggested PSU: AMD lists 250 W, NVIDIA lists none. Bus interface: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Dimensions: AMD measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. NVIDIA has no listed dimensions. Display outputs: AMD has 4x DisplayPort 2.1, NVIDIA has "Portable Device Dependent." Release dates: AMD was released on 2025-08-02, NVIDIA on 2023-03-20.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results, and the wins count for each card is zero. However, the specification data provides clear comparative performance indicators.

The biggest win for NVIDIA is in FP32 compute. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 12.35 TFLOPS compared to 7.885 TFLOPS for the AMD card. This represents a 56.6% advantage, which is substantial for any compute-bound workload. The FP16 performance follows the same pattern, with NVIDIA again at 12.35 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS for AMD.

Texture throughput shows a similar margin. NVIDIA's 193.0 GTexel/s exceeds AMD's 123.2 GTexel/s by 56.7%. This advantage is driven by NVIDIA's higher clock speeds and larger shader count, despite having fewer TMUs.

Pixel throughput favors NVIDIA as well. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation achieves 96.48 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s for the AMD card, a 37.0% advantage. This is notable because AMD has more ROPs (64 versus 48), but NVIDIA's much higher boost clock (2010 MHz versus 1100 MHz) overcomes that deficit.

Memory bandwidth is another NVIDIA win. At 256.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s, NVIDIA leads by 48.1%. This affects any workload that frequently accesses memory, including texture-heavy rendering and large compute kernels.

The AMD card's wins are structural rather than throughput-based. It has 112 TMUs versus 96, a 16.7% advantage. It has 64 ROPs versus 48, a 33.3% advantage. It also has 28 ray tracing cores versus 24, a 16.7% advantage. These architectural leads do not translate into measured throughput wins in the recorded specifications.

AMD also leads in physical size. Its 204 mm² die is 28.3% larger than NVIDIA's 159 mm² die, and its 168 mm board length provides more surface area for cooling. The AMD card has a lower transistor count at 13,300 million versus 18,900 million, but its lower density (65.2M per mm² versus 118.9M per mm²) reflects the older process node.

The power draw is nearly identical, with AMD at 55 W and NVIDIA at 50 W. This means NVIDIA delivers significantly higher performance at slightly lower power consumption, indicating better energy efficiency in the recorded data.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation is the stronger performer across nearly every measured throughput metric. Its FP32 compute is 56.6% higher, its texture rate is 56.7% higher, its pixel rate is 37.0% higher, and its memory bandwidth is 48.1% higher. It also achieves these results with a 5 W lower TDP (50 W versus 55 W) and uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface versus the AMD card's PCIe 4.0 x8.

The NVIDIA card is the clear choice for workloads that depend on raw compute throughput, high texture fetch rates, or memory bandwidth. Its 96 tensor cores also provide hardware acceleration for AI-related tasks, which the AMD card cannot match. Its smaller die size (159 mm² versus 204 mm²) and higher transistor density (118.9M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm²) indicate a more advanced process implementation.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has specific structural advantages. Its 112 TMUs and 64 ROPs exceed NVIDIA's counts, and its 28 ray tracing cores outnumber NVIDIA's 24. Its 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs provide a fixed, multi-display configuration that the NVIDIA card cannot guarantee, given its "Portable Device Dependent" output listing. The AMD card is also a single-slot form factor with explicit dimensions (168 mm, 69 mm, 20 mm), which suits desktop workstation builds.

For users who prioritize multi-display output flexibility and prefer a dedicated single-slot desktop card, the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 offers those features. For users who require maximum compute throughput, memory bandwidth, tensor core acceleration, and energy efficiency, the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation is the data-backed choice. The NVIDIA card's 2010 MHz boost clock, 3,072 shading units, and 12.35 TFLOPS FP32 performance place it in a higher performance tier within the recorded specifications.

Both cards share the same API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), 8 GB GDDR6 memory, 128-bit memory bus, and active production status. The decision rests on whether the workload favors NVIDIA's compute and bandwidth advantages or AMD's TMU, ROP, and display output configuration. The recorded data favors NVIDIA on performance metrics, with AMD retaining advantages in specific architectural unit counts and desktop-oriented physical design.