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

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows no head-to-head benchmark wins for either GPU in this comparison. Both the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation have empty benchmark result sets, meaning the database contains no direct performance measurements to separate them. What the database does provide is a complete specification sheet for each, which reveals where each part is designed to operate.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a desktop workstation card. It is a single-slot, 168 mm long, 69 mm tall, and 20 mm wide unit that draws power directly from the PCIe slot, requiring no auxiliary power connectors. Its 55 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU rating place it in the low-power desktop segment. The card outputs video through four DisplayPort 2.1 connections, which makes it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation is an integrated graphics processor (IGP), meaning it is designed for laptops and portable devices. It has a 50 W TDP, which is slightly lower than the AMD card, and its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile nature. It uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, double the lane width of the AMD card's x8 connection.

The use-case split is clear from the form factors. The AMD card is for desktop workstations where the user installs a physical card into a slot and connects multiple monitors. The NVIDIA part is for mobile workstations where space and power are constrained, and the display outputs are determined by the laptop manufacturer. Each GPU wins in its intended environment: the AMD part in a fixed desktop chassis, the NVIDIA part in a portable system.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed "Hotpink Bonefish." It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The chip is manufactured on a 6 nm TSMC process and contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 65.2 million per square millimeter.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip built on Ada Lovelace architecture. It belongs to the Ada-MW generation and is listed under the GeForce 20-series. The chip is manufactured on a 5 nm TSMC process and contains 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 118.9 million per square millimeter. Notably, the NVIDIA chip packs more transistors into a smaller die, resulting in nearly double the transistor density of the AMD chip.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so their API feature sets are identical. The NVIDIA part has 3072 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, 48 render output units, 24 ray tracing cores, and 96 tensor cores. The AMD part has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 28 ray tracing cores, but no tensor cores are listed. The NVIDIA GPU has significantly more shading units but fewer TMUs and ROPs.

The NVIDIA part's tensor cores are a key architectural difference, enabling AI-accelerated workloads that the AMD card cannot accelerate through dedicated hardware. The AMD card's higher ROP count suggests a different rasterization throughput balance. Both GPUs list FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio to FP32, so neither uses a half-rate FP16 path.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation has 3072 shading units, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 1792. The NVIDIA part provides 71% more shading units than the AMD part.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation has 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 172.8 GB/s. The NVIDIA part offers 48% more bandwidth, despite both using 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. The difference comes from the memory clock: 16 Gbps effective on the NVIDIA part versus 10.8 Gbps effective on the AMD part.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The NVIDIA AD107 chip has a transistor density of 118.9 million per square millimeter, while the AMD Navi 33 chip has 65.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is built on a 5 nm process compared to AMD's 6 nm process, and it fits 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, while AMD fits 13,300 million on a 204 mm² die.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API feature levels are identical between the two parts.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation has a boost clock of 2115 MHz, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The NVIDIA part runs at nearly double the boost frequency.

Q: What is the physical form factor of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a single-slot desktop card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation is an IGP with no listed dimensions, indicating it is soldered onto a laptop motherboard.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7400 | NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 18,900 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 159 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 118.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 330 MHz | 1635 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 2115 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz, 10.8 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 112 | 96 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | 24 |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 101.5 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 123.2 GTexel/s | 203.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 7.885 TFLOPS | 12.99 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 168 mm x 69 mm x 20 mm | Not listed |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results for these two GPUs, so the comparison must rely on the computed specification-derived rates. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation leads in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance is 12.99 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS for the AMD card, a 65% advantage. This aligns with the NVIDIA part's higher shading unit count and boost clock.

The pixel rate follows a similar pattern. The NVIDIA part achieves 101.5 GPixel/s, while the AMD card manages 70.40 GPixel/s, a 44% difference. The texture rate shows an even larger gap: 203.0 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 123.2 GTexel/s for AMD, a 65% advantage. These rates are derived from the clock and unit counts, so the NVIDIA part's much higher boost clock (2115 MHz versus 1100 MHz) drives most of the difference.

The AMD card does have structural advantages in certain unit counts. It has 112 TMUs versus 96 on the NVIDIA part, and 64 ROPs versus 48. However, the NVIDIA part's higher clock speed more than compensates in the resulting throughput figures. The AMD card also has 28 ray tracing cores versus 24 on the NVIDIA part, though the database does not list ray tracing performance rates for either GPU.

Memory bandwidth favors the NVIDIA part substantially. The 256.0 GB/s figure is 48% higher than the AMD card's 172.8 GB/s. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but the NVIDIA memory runs at 16 Gbps effective versus 10.8 Gbps effective on the AMD card. This bandwidth advantage matters for texture-heavy workloads and large data sets.

The AMD card's base clock is extremely low at 330 MHz, compared to 1635 MHz on the NVIDIA part. This suggests the AMD card relies heavily on boost behavior, while the NVIDIA part maintains a high baseline frequency. The boost clocks are 1100 MHz and 2115 MHz respectively, a 92% difference. The NVIDIA part's higher sustained frequencies likely translate to more consistent performance in bursty workloads.

The Verdict

The data shows two GPUs with fundamentally different design targets. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a desktop workstation card with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, a single-slot cooler, and no power connectors. It is built for professional multi-monitor environments where the physical card must fit into a standard desktop chassis. Its specification rates are lower across the board: 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate, 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate, and 172.8 GB/s memory bandwidth.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation is a mobile IGP with no physical dimensions, portable-device-dependent outputs, and a 50 W TDP. It delivers higher computed performance: 12.99 TFLOPS FP32, 101.5 GPixel/s, 203.0 GTexel/s, and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. It also includes 96 tensor cores, which the AMD part lacks entirely.

The choice depends on the deployment environment. For a desktop workstation that needs a physical card with multiple DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the only option that fits. For a laptop or compact portable workstation, the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Mobile Ada Generation is the applicable part. The NVIDIA part also offers higher raw throughput and tensor core support, but those advantages only matter if the system can accommodate an IGP rather than a slot-mounted card.

The database does not record any head-to-head benchmark wins for either GPU, so no empirical performance ranking exists. The specification analysis indicates the NVIDIA part delivers higher computed throughput in every rate category, while the AMD part provides a desktop form factor and more display outputs. Each GPU wins in its intended use case, and the data does not support a universal performance verdict.