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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for this comparison is notably one-sided. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation has a single benchmark entry in the database, the 3dmark_3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 test, where it scored 3596. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, meaning the head-to-head comparison table is empty and the win count stands at 0 for the AMD part and 0 for the NVIDIA part in direct comparisons.

The single available data point for the NVIDIA card places it at the 21st percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in that specific test are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 with an average score of 3594, which is 0.1% behind, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M at 3616 (0.6% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 at 3629 (0.9% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 at 3649 (1.5% ahead). These deltas are remarkably small, indicating that the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation's performance in this particular workload sits within a tight cluster of much older and less capable hardware.

The absence of a benchmark score for the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 means the database records no direct evidence of its performance in any workload. Its percentile ranking of 50th among all GPUs is present, but this is not derived from a measured benchmark score, as its average benchmark score is recorded as 0. The implication is that the database has not yet captured performance data for this part, leaving the comparison reliant on architectural specifications rather than measured results.

Where Each One Wins

Without a measured benchmark for the AMD part, the data cannot show any workload where it demonstrably wins. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation shows a recorded win in the only test it has run, the 3dmark_3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 workload, with a score of 3596. That test is a DirectX 12 workload, and the NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which aligns with the test's requirements.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, matching the API support of the NVIDIA card. However, the database provides no measured outcome for the AMD card in any of these API environments. The NVIDIA card's score of 3596 in the Steel Nomad test is the only concrete performance data available, and its nearest rivals all score within 1.5% of it, suggesting that this specific workload does not differentiate strongly between the NVIDIA card and those older rivals.

The architectural data indicates the NVIDIA card is designed for a different performance envelope, with a much higher transistor count and die size, but the benchmark data does not yet reflect that in a direct comparison. The AMD card's 50th percentile ranking suggests it sits near the middle of the database's GPU distribution, but without a score, this is a positional marker rather than a measured result.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs differ fundamentally in their underlying designs. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, containing 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation uses the AD103 chip built on Ada Lovelace architecture, belongs to the Ada-MW generation, and is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, containing 45,900 million transistors on a 379 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 121.1M per mm².

The NVIDIA chip packs more than three times the transistors into a die that is roughly 86% larger, and its transistor density is nearly double that of the AMD chip. This reflects a different design philosophy, with the NVIDIA part targeting higher absolute throughput through a much larger and denser implementation.

Clock behavior also differs substantially. The AMD card has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, while the NVIDIA card has a base clock of 1425 MHz and a boost clock of 2115 MHz. The NVIDIA card's boost clock is nearly double the AMD card's boost clock. Memory clocks differ as well, with the AMD card running its memory at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) and the NVIDIA card at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration diverges sharply. The AMD card has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 3.3 times the AMD card's bandwidth. The NVIDIA card also has double the memory capacity.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the NVIDIA part. The AMD card has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation units, along with 28 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The NVIDIA card has 9728 shading units, 304 TMUs, and 112 ROPs, along with 76 ray tracing cores and 304 tensor cores. The NVIDIA card has 5.4 times the shading units, 2.7 times the TMUs, 1.75 times the ROPs, and 2.7 times the ray tracing cores.

Rates and throughput figures follow the same pattern. The AMD card achieves a pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 7.885 TFLOPS, with FP16 also at 7.885 TFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA card achieves a pixel rate of 236.9 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 643.0 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 41.15 TFLOPS, with FP16 also at 41.15 TFLOPS in a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA card delivers 5.2 times the FP32 throughput, 3.4 times the pixel rate, and 5.2 times the texture rate.

Power and physical design differ as well. The AMD card has a TDP of 55 W, is single-slot, has no power connectors, and requires a suggested power supply of 250 W. It measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The NVIDIA card has a TDP of 120 W, is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no slot width, and has no power connectors. It has no recorded dimensions. The AMD card uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The AMD card has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the NVIDIA card's display outputs are marked as portable device dependent.

The Verdict

The data in the database supports only one clear conclusion. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation has a measured benchmark score of 3596 in the 3dmark_3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 test, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmark score at all. For anyone relying on measured performance, the NVIDIA card is the only part with evidence of capability.

The architectural data reinforces this. The NVIDIA card delivers 41.15 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, 16 GB of memory, and 304 tensor cores, all of which far exceed the AMD card's 7.885 TFLOPS, 172.8 GB/s, 8 GB, and absence of tensor cores. The NVIDIA card also has a higher boost clock, more shading units, more ray tracing cores, and higher pixel and texture rates.

The AMD card's 50th percentile ranking is the only positional data it has, and it does not correspond to any measured score. The NVIDIA card's 21st percentile ranking is tied to its single benchmark result, which places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545, GT 735M, GTX 1050, and AMD Radeon HD 6770 in that specific test. Those older parts score within 1.5% of the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation, which is a surprising result given the architectural gulf between them.

The AMD card does have advantages in form factor. It is a single-slot card with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and a 55 W TDP, making it suitable for installations where power and space are constrained. The NVIDIA card is an IGP with no dimensions and portable-device-dependent outputs, meaning it is not a discrete card at all. For a workstation requiring a dedicated slot and fixed display outputs, the AMD card is the only one that fits that physical profile. For raw compute, memory capacity, and bandwidth, the NVIDIA card is the only one with measured evidence and superior specifications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher recorded benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation has a recorded score of 3596 in the 3dmark_3dmark_steel_nomad_dx12 test. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmark score.

Q: How does the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation compare to its nearest rivals in the Steel Nomad test?

A: It scores 3596, which is 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 (3594), 0.6% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (3616), 0.9% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (3629), and 1.5% below the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649).

Q: What is the difference in FP32 performance between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation delivers 41.15 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card has 5.2 times the FP32 throughput.

Q: How much memory does each card have and what is the bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and requires a suggested power supply of 250 W. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation has a TDP of 120 W and has no suggested power supply listed.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7400 | NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation |

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

| Chip | Navi 33 | AD103 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 45,900 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 379 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 121.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 330 MHz | 1425 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 2115 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 9728 |

| TMUs | 112 | 304 |

| ROPs | 64 | 112 |

| RT Cores | 28 | 76 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 304 |

| Pixel Rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 236.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 123.2 GTexel/s | 643.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.885 TFLOPS | 41.15 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) | 41.15 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 120 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None |

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

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

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | None |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | None |

| Width | 20 mm (0.8 inches) | None |

| Release Date | 2025-08-02 | 2023-03-20 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Ampere-MW |

| Successor | None | Blackwell-MW |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 50 | 21 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 0 | 3596 |