AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell represent two vastly different approaches to professional graphics, separated by a wide gap in nearly every measurable specification. The W7400 is a compact, low-power entry point built on RDNA 3.0, while the RTX PRO 6000 is a massive dual-slot workstation flagship on the Blackwell 2.0 architecture. The database records a single shared benchmark result for the RTX PRO 6000, the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, with a score of 16408, placing it at the 59th percentile among all GPUs. The W7400 has no recorded benchmark entries, an average score of 0, and sits at the 50th percentile. This analysis examines the architectural, specification, and performance data available for both cards.

FAQ

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses a 6 nm process node, while the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell uses a 5 nm node. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Q: How much memory does each card have and what type is it?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell has 96 GB of GDDR7 memory on a 512-bit bus, providing 1.79 TB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the boost clock for the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell?

A: The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell has a base clock of 1590 MHz and a boost clock of 2617 MHz. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W and requires no power connectors. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell has a TDP of 600 W and uses a single 16-pin power connector.

Q: Which card has tensor cores?

A: The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell includes 752 tensor cores. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 does not list any tensor core count in the database.

Q: What is the MSRP for the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell?

A: The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell has a launch MSRP of 8,565 USD. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on entirely different architectures. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses RDNA 3.0, with the codename "Hotpink Bonefish" and the chip "Navi 33". It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. In contrast, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with the GB202 chip and belongs to the Blackwell PRO W (x000) generation. This architectural split drives nearly every other difference between the two cards, from compute layout to feature support.

The process nodes differ as well. The W7400 is built on a 6 nm process, while the RTX PRO 6000 uses a 5 nm process, both from TSMC. The transistor counts are dramatically different. The W7400 contains 13,300 million transistors on a die size of 204 mm², yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². The RTX PRO 6000 contains 92,200 million transistors on a die size of 750 mm², yielding a density of 122.9 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip therefore packs more than double the transistor density and nearly seven times the total transistor count.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The W7400 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. It also includes 28 ray tracing cores but no tensor cores. The RTX PRO 6000 has 24064 shading units, 752 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. It includes 188 ray tracing cores and 752 tensor cores. This means the RTX PRO 6000 has roughly 13.4 times the shading units, 6.7 times the TMUs, and 3 times the ROPs of the W7400. The presence of tensor cores in the NVIDIA card adds a dedicated compute path for AI workloads that the AMD card lacks entirely.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the RTX PRO 6000 uses 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus. The memory clock differs as well: the W7400 runs at 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective, while the RTX PRO 6000 runs at 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective. This leads to a bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s for the AMD card versus 1.79 TB/s for the NVIDIA card, a more than tenfold difference.

The physical and power profiles also differ. The W7400 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with no power connectors and a TDP of 55 W. The RTX PRO 6000 is a dual-slot card measuring 304 mm in length, 137 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, with a single 16-pin power connector and a TDP of 600 W. The suggested power supply rating is 250 W for the AMD card and 1000 W for the NVIDIA card. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7400 versus PCIe 5.0 x16 for the RTX PRO 6000. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.1 for the AMD card and 4x DisplayPort 2.1b for the NVIDIA card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries comparing the two cards directly. However, it does record a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score for the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell: 16408 points. This places the card at the 59th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of 0, and sits at the 50th percentile. With no direct comparison data, the relative performance must be inferred from the specification deltas and the nearest rival data for the RTX PRO 6000.

The RTX PRO 6000's nearest rivals in the database are all clustered within a narrow score band. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 scores 16415, just 0 percent different from the RTX PRO 6000. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 16361, which is 0.3 percent higher than the RTX PRO 6000. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 16351, 0.4 percent higher. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 scores 16504, which is 0.6 percent lower than the RTX PRO 6000. These deltas indicate that the RTX PRO 6000's Steel Nomad score sits in a very tight competitive cluster, with all four rivals within roughly one percent of its result. The RTX PRO 6000 is effectively tied with these cards in this specific test, despite the massive specification differences between them.

The absence of a benchmark score for the W7400 means the database cannot quantify its performance against the RTX PRO 6000 in any recorded test. The W7400's 50th percentile placement, combined with zero average benchmark score, indicates that no performance data has been captured for it. The RTX PRO 6000, by contrast, has a concrete score and a percentile ranking 9 points higher than the W7400. Without a shared benchmark result, the head-to-head comparison relies on the raw specification deltas, which are substantial across every compute and memory category.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows differences in nearly every field. The process node differs: 6 nm for the W7400 versus 5 nm for the RTX PRO 6000. Transistor count is 13,300 million versus 92,200 million. Die size is 204 mm² versus 750 mm². Transistor density is 65.2 million per mm² versus 122.9 million per mm². Base clocks are 330 MHz versus 1590 MHz. Boost clocks are 1100 MHz versus 2617 MHz. Memory clocks are 1350 MHz with 10.8 Gbps effective versus 1750 MHz with 28 Gbps effective.

Memory specifications differ completely. The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX PRO 6000 has 96 GB of GDDR7 on a 512-bit bus with 1.79 TB/s bandwidth. The compute units scale accordingly: shading units are 1792 versus 24064, TMUs are 112 versus 752, and ROPs are 64 versus 192. Ray tracing cores are 28 versus 188. The RTX PRO 6000 has 752 tensor cores while the W7400 has none recorded.

Rates and throughput figures follow the same pattern. The pixel rate for the W7400 is 70.40 GPixel/s versus 502.5 GPixel/s for the RTX PRO 6000. The texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s versus 1,968.0 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 7.885 TFLOPS versus 126.0 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance is also 7.885 TFLOPS versus 126.0 TFLOPS, with both cards running FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.

Power and physical dimensions differ as well. TDP is 55 W versus 600 W. The W7400 is single-slot with no power connectors; the RTX PRO 6000 is dual-slot with one 16-pin connector. Suggested PSU is 250 W versus 1000 W. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 5.0 x16. Dimensions are 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm versus 304 mm by 137 mm by 40 mm. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.1 versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1b. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The release dates differ: the W7400 released on 2025-08-02, while the RTX PRO 6000 released earlier on 2025-03-17.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell wins in every recorded performance-oriented specification. Its FP32 throughput of 126.0 TFLOPS is roughly 16 times higher than the W7400's 7.885 TFLOPS. Its memory bandwidth of 1.79 TB/s is over ten times the 172.8 GB/s of the AMD card. The 96 GB memory capacity is twelve times larger than the 8 GB on the W7400. The RTX PRO 6000 also offers 752 tensor cores, which the W7400 does not provide at all. For workloads that depend on raw compute, large memory pools, or AI acceleration, the NVIDIA card is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The RTX PRO 6000 also delivers a recorded benchmark score of 16408 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, placing it at the 59th percentile. Its nearest rivals in that test are all within one percent of its score, which indicates that its performance in this specific workload is competitive with a range of other GPUs. The card's specification advantage does not translate into a dominant lead in this particular benchmark, but it does provide a concrete performance data point that the W7400 lacks entirely.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in power efficiency and physical footprint. Its TDP of 55 W is less than one tenth of the RTX PRO 6000's 600 W. It requires no power connectors, while the NVIDIA card needs a single 16-pin connector. The suggested power supply is 250 W versus 1000 W. The W7400 is a single-slot card at 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, compared to the RTX PRO 6000's dual-slot design at 304 mm by 137 mm by 40 mm. For systems with tight power budgets, limited space, or no high-wattage power supply, the W7400 is the more practical option based on the data.

The AMD card also uses a smaller die at 204 mm² versus 750 mm² and a lower transistor count at 13,300 million versus 92,200 million. It runs on a 6 nm process versus 5 nm. These factors contribute to its lower power draw and smaller physical size. The W7400 also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RTX PRO 6000 uses PCIe 5.0 x16, which means the AMD card can operate in more modest system configurations.

The release timeline slightly favors the AMD card in terms of recency, with a release date of 2025-08-02 versus 2025-03-17 for the NVIDIA card. Both cards are marked as Active in production status. The W7400 lists the Radeon Pro Vega as its predecessor, while the RTX PRO 6000 lists Workstation Ada as its predecessor. Neither card has a recorded successor.

In terms of use cases, the data supports a clear split. The RTX PRO 6000 is suited for workloads that demand maximum compute throughput, large memory capacity for massive datasets, and tensor core acceleration for AI and machine learning tasks. The W7400 is suited for environments where power consumption, physical space, and system integration constraints take priority, with no benchmark data to suggest it competes on raw performance. The absence of shared benchmark results means the performance gap cannot be measured directly, but the specification deltas are so large that the RTX PRO 6000 holds a commanding advantage in every compute and memory category recorded in the database.