AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core architectural differences between the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture with a 6 nm process at TSMC, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation uses the AD103 chip built on Ada Lovelace architecture with a 5 nm process at TSMC. The AMD card integrates 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, while the NVIDIA card integrates 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die.

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

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card offers double the memory capacity and more than three times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher compute throughput in FP32 operations?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 32.69 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card provides approximately 4.1 times the FP32 throughput. Both cards maintain a 1:1 ratio for FP16 performance relative to FP32.

Q: What are the physical and power characteristics of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with a 55 W TDP and no power connectors, requiring a 250 W suggested power supply. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor with a 120 W TDP and no power connectors, with dimensions listed as portable device dependent.

Q: What are the display output capabilities of each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation lists its display outputs as portable device dependent, reflecting its embedded design target.

Q: How do the rendering pipelines differ in terms of specialized hardware?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation has 9,728 shading units, 304 texture mapping units, 112 ROPs, 76 ray tracing cores, and 304 tensor cores. The NVIDIA card includes tensor cores, which the AMD card does not list.

The Verdict

The recorded data positions these two cards for entirely different deployment scenarios. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400, with its 55 W TDP, single-slot profile, and 168 mm length, targets compact workstation builds where space and power envelopes are constrained. Its 8 GB memory capacity and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth suit moderate-resolution workloads that do not demand large working sets.

The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation, by contrast, is an IGP designed for portable and embedded systems. Its 120 W TDP reflects a higher performance ceiling, and the 16 GB memory capacity with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth accommodates substantially larger datasets. The inclusion of 304 tensor cores and 76 ray tracing cores indicates a hardware feature set aimed at accelerated AI inference and ray-traced rendering tasks.

The FP32 compute gap is decisive for raw throughput: 32.69 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card delivers 4.1 times the single-precision compute. Texture rate follows the same pattern, with 510.7 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA as well, at 188.2 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s.

The AMD card's advantages are practical rather than performance-oriented. It is a standard PCIe 4.0 x8 add-in card with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it straightforward to install in a conventional workstation chassis. The NVIDIA card uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and is form-factor dependent on the host device, which limits its use to systems specifically designed for it.

The production status for both cards is listed as Active. The AMD card has a release date of 2025-08-02 and succeeds the Radeon Pro Vega. The NVIDIA card has a release date of 2023-03-20, succeeds Ampere-MW, and is itself succeeded by Blackwell-MW. The NVIDIA card has been on the market longer and already has a defined successor, while the AMD card is a newer addition to the Radeon Pro Navi series.

The data indicates that the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation is the stronger compute performer by substantial margins across every measured throughput metric. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is the more conventional workstation card, suited to standard desktop integration and multi-display setups. Neither card shows a benchmark score in the database, and both sit at the 50th percentile among all GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either card, so direct performance measurements are not available. The comparison must instead rely on the architectural throughput specifications recorded for each product.

FP32 compute shows the largest absolute gap. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation delivers 32.69 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS. This represents a 4.1x advantage for NVIDIA. Both cards implement FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, so the same proportional difference applies to half-precision workloads.

Texture throughput follows a similar pattern. The NVIDIA card achieves 510.7 GTexel/s, compared to 123.2 GTexel/s for the AMD card. The NVIDIA advantage stems from both a higher shading unit count, 9,728 versus 1,792, and a higher texture mapping unit count, 304 versus 112. The boost clock difference also contributes: 1680 MHz for NVIDIA versus 1100 MHz for AMD.

Pixel throughput favors NVIDIA at 188.2 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA card has 112 ROPs, while the AMD card has 64 ROPs. This gives NVIDIA a 2.7x margin in fill-rate-limited scenarios.

Memory bandwidth presents one of the more pronounced differences. The NVIDIA card's 576.0 GB/s is 3.3x the AMD card's 172.8 GB/s. The bus width difference, 256-bit versus 128-bit, is the primary driver, compounded by a higher effective memory clock of 18 Gbps versus 10.8 Gbps.

The ray tracing hardware counts show NVIDIA with 76 ray tracing cores versus AMD's 28. The NVIDIA card also adds 304 tensor cores, a resource category absent from the AMD specification sheet. These counts indicate a material difference in accelerated workloads such as denoising, DLSS-class operations, and AI-assisted rendering.

The AMD card wins on integration flexibility. Its 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width fit within standard low-profile constraints. The 55 W TDP requires no auxiliary power connector, and the suggested 250 W power supply is modest. The NVIDIA card, as an IGP, has no listed dimensions and relies on the host device for its power and cooling solution.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API feature sets are equivalent, so software compatibility at the API level does not differentiate them.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every recorded specification category.

Process node: AMD uses 6 nm at TSMC; NVIDIA uses 5 nm at TSMC. Transistor count: AMD integrates 13,300 million; NVIDIA integrates 45,900 million. Die size: AMD measures 204 mm²; NVIDIA measures 379 mm². Transistor density: AMD achieves 65.2M per mm²; NVIDIA achieves 121.1M per mm².

Clock speeds: AMD has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz; NVIDIA has a base clock of 930 MHz and a boost clock of 1680 MHz. Memory clock: AMD operates at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective; NVIDIA operates at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration: AMD has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth; NVIDIA has 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute resources: AMD has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores; NVIDIA has 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, 112 ROPs, 76 ray tracing cores, and 304 tensor cores.

Throughput rates: AMD achieves 70.40 GPixel/s and 123.2 GTexel/s; NVIDIA achieves 188.2 GPixel/s and 510.7 GTexel/s. FP32: AMD delivers 7.885 TFLOPS; NVIDIA delivers 32.69 TFLOPS. FP16 mirrors these figures at 1:1 for both.

Power and form factor: AMD has a 55 W TDP, single-slot width, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU; NVIDIA has a 120 W TDP, IGP form factor, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU listed. AMD dimensions are 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm; NVIDIA dimensions are not listed.

Bus interface: AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8; NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs: AMD provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1; NVIDIA provides portable device dependent outputs.

Release timing: AMD released on 2025-08-02; NVIDIA released on 2023-03-20. Predecessors: AMD succeeds Radeon Pro Vega; NVIDIA succeeds Ampere-MW. NVIDIA lists Blackwell-MW as its successor; AMD lists none.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is built on RDNA 3.0, the third generation of AMD's RDNA architecture, implemented on the Navi 33 chip. The codename is Hotpink Bonefish, and the generation is listed as Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series). The architecture uses a 6 nm TSMC process with a transistor density of 65.2M per mm².

The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Embedded Ada Generation is built on Ada Lovelace, implemented on the AD103 chip. The generation is listed as Ada-MW, and the architecture uses a 5 nm TSMC process with a transistor density of 121.1M per mm². The denser process allows NVIDIA to pack 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die, compared to AMD's 13,300 million transistors in a 204 mm² die.

The compute architecture differs in scale and specialization. AMD's RDNA 3.0 implementation uses 1,792 shading units organized across 112 TMUs and 64 ROPs. Ray tracing is handled by 28 dedicated cores. No tensor or matrix acceleration hardware is listed.

NVIDIA's Ada Lovelace implementation scales significantly higher with 9,728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs. Ray tracing is handled by 76 cores, and tensor operations are accelerated by 304 tensor cores. The tensor core presence is the defining architectural differentiator, enabling AI-accelerated features that the AMD card cannot match at the hardware level.

Memory architecture also differs. The AMD card uses a 128-bit GDDR6 interface with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth and 8 GB capacity. The NVIDIA card uses a 256-bit GDDR6 interface with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth and 16 GB capacity. The wider bus and higher memory clock give NVIDIA a substantial bandwidth advantage for data-intensive workloads.

The power delivery approach reflects the different design targets. AMD's 55 W TDP allows a single-slot, passively integrable card with no external power connector. NVIDIA's 120 W TDP, while higher, remains within embedded thermal envelopes and also requires no external power connector.

The bus interface differs as well. AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which provides adequate bandwidth for its memory subsystem. NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16, doubling the host interface width. This matters for systems that transfer data between GPU memory and host memory frequently.

The display output strategy is another architectural divergence. AMD provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, supporting standard multi-monitor workstation configurations. NVIDIA lists its outputs as portable device dependent, reflecting its embedded IGP nature where display routing is determined by the host device's design.

Both cards share the same API support levels: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API compatibility is identical, so software written to these interfaces will run on either card. The performance characteristics, however, diverge sharply in favor of the NVIDIA card across all recorded throughput metrics.