AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and NVIDIA Rubin GPU occupy entirely different segments of the graphics hardware spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects this divide clearly. The W7400 is a professional workstation card built around the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, targeting single-slot, low-power rendering workloads. The Rubin GPU, built on the GR100 chip with Rubin architecture, is a server-class compute module designed for massive parallel processing and AI acceleration. Neither part wins in a head-to-head sense because they are not competing for the same workloads, but each has clear domains where its specifications dominate.

The W7400 wins in display and graphics output capability. It provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the Rubin GPU has no outputs at all. For any workstation task that requires driving multiple high-resolution monitors, the W7400 is the only viable option between the two. Its 8 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, sufficient for professional visualization tasks. The Rubin GPU, with 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus, offers 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth, a figure that dwarfs the W7400 but serves compute workloads rather than display output.

The Rubin GPU wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 performance reaches 130.0 TFLOPS, compared to 7.885 TFLOPS for the W7400. The FP16 figures are even more lopsided: 260.0 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS. The Rubin GPU also carries 896 tensor cores, which the W7400 lacks entirely. This makes the Rubin GPU suitable for AI training, inference, and scientific simulation, while the W7400 is oriented toward CAD, 3D modeling, and video editing where display output matters.

The power envelope separates the two further. The W7400 operates at 55 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Rubin GPU demands 2300 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 2700 W. The W7400 fits into a 168 mm single-slot chassis, while the Rubin GPU is an SXM module with no conventional card dimensions. The process nodes reflect their different design goals: the W7400 uses 6 nm TSMC, while the Rubin GPU uses 3 nm TSMC, enabling its 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS FP32, which is approximately 16.5 times the 7.885 TFLOPS of the AMD Radeon PRO W7400.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 support display outputs?

A: Yes, the W7400 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for direct monitor connection.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has tensor cores?

A: Only the NVIDIA Rubin GPU has tensor cores, with 896 of them. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has no tensor cores listed in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The W7400 has a 55 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Rubin GPU has a 2300 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 2700 W.

Q: Which GPU supports PCIe 6.0?

A: The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses PCIe 6.0 x16, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs, and the win counts are zero for both parts. This absence of comparative benchmarks reflects their fundamentally different target markets. Instead, the specification sheet provides the basis for comparison, and the gaps are substantial in every compute metric.

The most significant disparity appears in FP32 throughput. The Rubin GPU reaches 130.0 TFLOPS, while the W7400 manages 7.885 TFLOPS. That is a 16.5x advantage for the Rubin GPU. In FP16, the Rubin GPU doubles its FP32 rate to 260.0 TFLOPS due to a 2:1 ratio, while the W7400 maintains a 1:1 ratio at 7.885 TFLOPS. The texture rate shows a similar pattern: the Rubin GPU delivers 2,031.2 GTexel/s against 123.2 GTexel/s for the W7400, a 16.5x difference. Pixel rates tell a different story, however. The W7400 achieves 70.40 GPixel/s, which is actually higher than the Rubin GPU's 54.41 GPixel/s. This stems from the Rubin GPU's low ROP count of 24, compared to 64 ROPs on the W7400. For rasterization-heavy tasks that depend on pixel throughput, the W7400 holds an advantage despite its far smaller compute core count.

Memory bandwidth is another area of dramatic divergence. The Rubin GPU's 22.1 TB/s exceeds the W7400's 172.8 GB/s by a factor of roughly 128. The bus width difference explains this: 16384 bits versus 128 bits. The memory type also differs, with HBM4 on the Rubin GPU and GDDR6 on the W7400. Clock speeds show a mixed picture. The W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz. The Rubin GPU has a higher base clock of 700 MHz and a much higher boost clock of 2267 MHz. The memory clock is identical in effective terms at 10.8 Gbps, although the physical clock differs (1350 MHz for the W7400 versus 2695 MHz for the Rubin GPU).

Shader resources favor the Rubin GPU overwhelmingly. It has 28,672 shading units and 896 TMUs, compared to 1,792 shading units and 112 TMUs for the W7400. The Rubin GPU also has 896 tensor cores, while the W7400 has none. Ray tracing cores are present on the W7400 at 28 units, but the Rubin GPU's ray tracing core count is not listed in the database. The transistor counts are equally lopsided: 336,000 million for the Rubin GPU versus 13,300 million for the W7400. Die sizes follow suit at 1456 mm² versus 204 mm². Transistor density favors the Rubin GPU at 230.8M per mm², compared to 65.2M per mm² for the W7400, reflecting the 3 nm process versus 6 nm.

# Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category in the database. Process node is a fundamental gap: the W7400 uses 6 nm TSMC, while the Rubin GPU uses 3 nm TSMC. Transistor count stands at 13,300 million for the W7400 and 336,000 million for the Rubin GPU. Die size measures 204 mm² for the W7400 and 1456 mm² for the Rubin GPU. Transistor density is 65.2M per mm² versus 230.8M per mm².

Memory specifications diverge completely. The W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Rubin GPU has 288 GB of HBM4 on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds differ as well: the W7400 runs at 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost, while the Rubin GPU runs at 700 MHz base and 2267 MHz boost. The memory clock is 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) for the W7400 and 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) for the Rubin GPU.

Compute unit counts show a wide margin. The W7400 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Rubin GPU has 28,672 shading units, 896 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. Ray tracing cores: 28 on the W7400, unspecified on the Rubin GPU. Tensor cores: none on the W7400, 896 on the Rubin GPU. Pixel rate is 70.40 GPixel/s for the W7400 versus 54.41 GPixel/s for the Rubin GPU. Texture rate is 123.2 GTexel/s versus 2,031.2 GTexel/s. FP32 is 7.885 TFLOPS versus 130.0 TFLOPS. FP16 is 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1).

Power and physical specifications are also distinct. The W7400 has a 55 W TDP, is single-slot, uses no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Rubin GPU has a 2300 W TDP, is an SXM Module, has no power connector data, and requires a suggested PSU of 2700 W. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7400 versus PCIe 6.0 x16 for the Rubin GPU. Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1 for the W7400 versus no outputs for the Rubin GPU. API support also differs: the W7400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Rubin GPU lists N/A for all three.

Dimensions are only provided for the W7400: 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width. The Rubin GPU has no listed dimensions. Release dates differ as well: the W7400 launched on 2025-08-02, while the Rubin GPU is dated 2025-12-31. The production status for both is Active. The W7400's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, while the Rubin GPU's predecessor is Server Blackwell. Neither has a successor listed.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two GPUs is as fundamental as any in the database. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses the GR100 chip with Rubin architecture, belonging to the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation. No codename is listed for the Rubin GPU.

The W7400's RDNA 3.0 architecture is designed for graphics workloads with integrated display output. It implements ray tracing through 28 dedicated RT cores, a feature absent from the Rubin GPU's specification listing. The W7400 supports a full graphics API stack including DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Its 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio indicates a design where both precisions use the same hardware paths, simplifying graphics shader execution.

The Rubin GPU's architecture is compute-oriented, with 896 tensor cores explicitly listed. Its 2:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio shows dedicated half-precision hardware that doubles throughput for AI workloads. The absence of display outputs and graphics API support (DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan all listed as N/A) confirms a compute-first design. The Rubin GPU uses HBM4 memory with a 16384-bit bus, a configuration suited to high-bandwidth data movement for large models and simulations.

The transistor density figures illustrate the architectural differences at the silicon level. The W7400 achieves 65.2M transistors per mm² on a 6 nm process. The Rubin GPU reaches 230.8M transistors per mm² on a 3 nm process. The Rubin GPU's die size of 1456 mm² is the largest in this comparison, enabling 336,000 million transistors. The W7400's 204 mm² die holds 13,300 million transistors. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but at different process nodes.

The memory architecture also reflects divergent design goals. The W7400 uses 8 GB GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus, prioritizing low power and small physical footprint. The Rubin GPU uses 288 GB HBM4 with a 16384-bit bus, prioritizing capacity and bandwidth for server-class workloads. The clock strategy differs: the W7400's boost clock of 1100 MHz is conservative for power efficiency, while the Rubin GPU's boost of 2267 MHz extracts maximum performance from its 2300 W TDP budget. The W7400's 55 W TDP enables passive or low-noise operation in workstations, while the Rubin GPU requires the SXM Module form factor with substantial cooling infrastructure.