AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear performance gap between these two workstation cards, though direct head-to-head benchmark results are not available in the database. The available measurements for the NVIDIA RTX A400 provide a frame of reference, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 carries no individual benchmark entries in the database.

The RTX A400 delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 22844 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 22237. Its Passmark results show 5983 for G3D, 2557 for GPU compute, 899 for G2D, and legacy DirectX scores of 87 (DX9), 37 (DX11), 32 (DX10), and 27 (DX12). The average benchmark score for the RTX A400 is 6078, placing it at the 35th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 with an average score of 6077, a delta of 0%. The Quadro P2000 trails by 0.5% at 6049, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 leads by 0.6% at 6117, and the AMD Radeon 760M sits 1% behind at 6019.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so its percentile ranking is listed at 50 with an average score of 0. This makes direct numeric comparison impossible. What the hardware specifications indicate, however, is a substantial compute advantage for the AMD card. The W7400 lists FP32 performance of 7.885 TFLOPS, nearly three times the 2.706 TFLOPS of the RTX A400. Pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. These figures suggest the W7400 should outperform the A400 across most GPU-bound workloads, despite the absence of direct benchmark confirmation.

The RTX A400 sits in a low-tier position within its own competitive set. Its 35th percentile ranking and average score of 6078 place it near integrated graphics solutions like the Radeon 760M and older professional cards like the Quadro P2000. The W7400, by contrast, is positioned at the 50th percentile based on its specification profile. The compute resources alone, 1792 shading units versus 768, indicate a card designed for a higher workload tier.

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 compare to the NVIDIA RTX A400 in raw compute performance?

A: The W7400 lists FP32 performance of 7.885 TFLOPS, which is approximately 2.9 times the 2.706 TFLOPS of the RTX A400. The AMD card also delivers 123.2 GTexel/s texture rate versus 42.29 GTexel/s and 70.40 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 28.19 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD card has double the memory capacity and 1.8 times the bandwidth.

Q: Where does the RTX A400 rank among all GPUs based on recorded benchmarks?

A: The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6078 and sits at the 35th percentile. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 with a delta of 0%, while the Quadro P2000 trails by 0.5% and the Radeon 760M trails by 1%.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and the RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W. Both cards require a suggested PSU of 250 W, use no external power connectors, and occupy a single slot.

Q: Which display outputs does each card provide?

A: The AMD W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The NVIDIA RTX A400 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: What is the transistor and process node difference?

A: The W7400 uses a 6 nm TSMC process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The RTX A400 uses an 8 nm Samsung process with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The AMD card achieves a transistor density of 65.2M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm².

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different architecture generations. 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 generation. The NVIDIA RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip built on Ampere architecture and belongs to the Workstation Ampere generation.

Manufacturing processes differ significantly. The AMD card is built on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the NVIDIA card uses an 8 nm Samsung process. This contributes to the transistor count gap: 13,300 million transistors on the W7400 versus 8,700 million on the A400. Die sizes are similar at 204 mm² for the AMD and 200 mm² for the NVIDIA, but transistor density is markedly different at 65.2M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm².

Compute resources diverge sharply. The W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware exists on both cards, but the AMD card has 28 RT cores while the NVIDIA card has 6. The NVIDIA card includes 24 tensor cores, while the AMD card lists no tensor core equivalent. Clock behavior also differs: the W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and boost of 1100 MHz, while the A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. The AMD card relies on its wider compute architecture to compensate for lower clocks.

Memory architecture follows suit. The W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus at 1350 MHz, yielding 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A400 uses 4 GB on a 64-bit bus at 1500 MHz, yielding 96.00 GB/s. Both support PCIe 4.0 x8 interfaces and list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 API support.

Physical dimensions are close: the W7400 measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width. The A400 measures 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with no width listed. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU.

The Verdict

The database indicates two cards at different performance tiers. The W7400 holds a 50th percentile ranking with no recorded benchmark scores, while the RTX A400 holds a 35th percentile ranking with an average score of 6078. The W7400 offers roughly three times the FP32 compute, double the memory capacity, and nearly double the memory bandwidth of the A400 based on listed specifications.

Workloads that scale with raw compute throughput will favor the AMD card. The 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 figure, 1792 shading units, and 28 RT cores position it for heavier rendering, simulation, and compute tasks. The RTX A400, with its 24 tensor cores and 2.706 TFLOPS FP32, sits in a lower tier near the MX230 and Quadro P2000 in the database rankings. Its 35th percentile placement suggests it targets lighter professional workloads where its smaller memory footprint and lower compute ceiling are acceptable.

The RTX A400's release date in April 2024 and its predecessor lineage from Quadro Turing indicate a modern entry-level professional card. The W7400, released in August 2025 with a predecessor of Radeon Pro Vega, represents a newer generation with a more powerful specification profile. Users needing 8 GB of memory, higher bandwidth, and substantially more compute throughput should look to the AMD card. Users working within the constraints of 4 GB memory and modest compute demands may find the NVIDIA card sufficient, but the recorded data shows it competing with integrated graphics solutions rather than dedicated workstation-class hardware.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7400 | NVIDIA RTX A400 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 8 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 8,700 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 200 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 43.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 330 MHz | 1417 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 1762 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz, 10.8 Gbps effective | 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 768 |

| TMUs | 112 | 24 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 28 | 6 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 28.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 123.2 GTexel/s | 42.29 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.885 TFLOPS | 2.706 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) | 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 50 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Length | 168 mm | 163 mm |

| Release Date | 2025-08-02 | 2024-04-15 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in every compute-heavy category based on listed specifications. Its FP32 throughput of 7.885 TFLOPS is nearly triple the RTX A400's 2.706 TFLOPS. Texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s gives it a clear advantage in texturing workloads. Pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s indicates faster fill-rate performance. The 8 GB memory capacity with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth supports larger datasets and higher-resolution textures than the 4 GB, 96.00 GB/s configuration of the A400. Its 28 RT cores versus 6 position it ahead for ray-traced workloads. The 6 nm process with higher transistor density also suggests better power efficiency per transistor, though both cards have similar TDPs at 55 W and 50 W.

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins in a narrower set of areas. It has a higher boost clock at 1762 MHz versus 1100 MHz. It includes 24 tensor cores, which the AMD card lacks entirely. This gives it a functional advantage in workloads that specifically use tensor core acceleration. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support a different connectivity standard than the DisplayPort 2.1 outputs on the AMD card. The RTX A400 also has recorded benchmark data, with an average score of 6078, while the W7400 has no measured results in the database. Its 35th percentile placement shows it competing closely with the MX230, Quadro P2000, and Radeon 760M, all within a 1.6% score band.

For legacy DirectX workloads, the RTX A400 shows a particular pattern: its Passmark DX9 score of 87 far exceeds its DX12 score of 27. This suggests the card handles older API workloads more comfortably than modern ones. The W7400 has no comparable data recorded. The NVIDIA card also uses a smaller physical footprint at 163 mm versus 168 mm, a minor difference for chassis compatibility. Both cards require the same 250 W suggested PSU and use no external power connectors, so system integration requirements are identical on the power side.