AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no direct benchmark results between the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU. The database contains no head-to-head test scores, no average benchmark score for either product, and no rival comparison entries. Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile versus all GPUs in the database, which indicates they occupy a similar tier in the overall performance distribution, but the specifics of that placement cannot be quantified without measurement data.

What can be compared directly are the theoretical throughput figures recorded in the database. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU delivers 4.301 TFLOPS. That places the AMD part roughly 83% ahead in single-precision floating-point throughput, a substantial margin derived entirely from the recorded specifications. In FP16 compute, the relationship flips: the NVIDIA GPU reaches 8.602 TFLOPS through its 2:1 rate, while the AMD GPU stays at 7.885 TFLOPS with a 1:1 rate. The NVIDIA part leads by approximately 9% in half-precision throughput, a narrower edge but a clear one.

Pixel processing shows another large gap. The AMD GPU records 70.40 GPixel/s against 22.40 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA part, giving AMD a 3.14x advantage in pixel fill rate. Texture processing follows the same pattern: 123.2 GTexel/s for AMD versus 67.20 GTexel/s for NVIDIA, a 1.83x lead. These figures come from the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs counts in the database: 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs for AMD, versus 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for NVIDIA.

Memory bandwidth also favors AMD. The W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 172.8 GB/s. The Switch 2 GPU uses 12 GB of LPDDR5X on the same 128-bit bus width but reaches only 102.4 GB/s. That is a 69% bandwidth advantage for AMD, despite the smaller capacity. The NVIDIA part compensates with 50% more memory capacity, which matters in different workloads.

Clock behavior differs markedly. The AMD GPU runs at a 330 MHz base clock and 1100 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA GPU runs at 561 MHz base and 1400 MHz boost. The NVIDIA chip boosts 27% higher, but the AMD chip compensates with more execution units. Memory clocks also diverge: AMD uses 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) while NVIDIA uses 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective). The effective data rate advantage for AMD is 69%, matching the bandwidth figures.

The absence of benchmark data means these specification-derived rates are the only quantitative comparison available. The database lists no wins for either product in the head-to-head section, and both have an average benchmark score of zero, reflecting the lack of tested workloads rather than actual performance parity.

The Verdict

The data indicates two products built for entirely different roles. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a workstation GPU with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, a single-slot form factor, and a 55 W TDP. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU is a console-class part with no display outputs of its own, a 40 W TDP, and dimensions suited to an integrated console design (272 mm length, 116 mm height, 14 mm width). The benchmark database records no measured performance, so any selection guidance must come from the architectural and specification differences.

For compute workloads that rely on FP32 throughput, the AMD part is the stronger option on paper. Its 7.885 TFLOPS nearly doubles the NVIDIA part's 4.301 TFLOPS. For FP16 workloads, the NVIDIA part's 8.602 TFLOPS edges out AMD's 7.885 TFLOPS, making it the better choice for half-precision compute if the software supports the 2:1 path. For pixel-heavy or texture-heavy rendering, AMD's 70.40 GPixel/s and 123.2 GTexel/s dominate the NVIDIA part's 22.40 GPixel/s and 67.20 GTexel/s.

Memory capacity favors the NVIDIA part at 12 GB versus 8 GB, which matters for larger datasets or higher-resolution texture pools. Memory bandwidth favors AMD at 172.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, which matters for streaming geometry and frequent data transfers. The AMD GPU uses GDDR6, while the NVIDIA GPU uses LPDDR5X, a difference in memory technology that aligns with their respective power envelopes.

The AMD product has a launch MSRP of 449 USD, which can be stated once as a reference point. The NVIDIA part has no listed launch MSRP, only its place in a console product. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility does not differentiate them.

The production status for both is Active, and both released in 2025, with the NVIDIA part dated June 4, 2025 and the AMD part dated August 2, 2025. The AMD GPU lists a predecessor (Radeon Pro Vega) while the NVIDIA part lists none. Neither has a successor.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The manufacturing process is 6 nm at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2M per mm².

The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU uses the GA10B chip built on Ampere architecture. It has no codename listed. The generation is described as Console GPU (Nintendo). The manufacturing process is 8 nm at Samsung, with a die size of 200 mm² and an unknown transistor count. The transistor density is not recorded.

The process node difference is significant: 6 nm versus 8 nm. The AMD part packs more transistors (13,300 million versus unknown) into a slightly larger die (204 mm² versus 200 mm²). The AMD GPU achieves a much higher pixel rate and texture rate despite the lower boost clock, which indicates a wider execution engine. The NVIDIA part has tensor cores (48) that the AMD part lacks entirely, a feature difference that affects AI-related workloads if the software stack supports them.

Ray tracing hardware differs in count: AMD has 28 RT cores, NVIDIA has 12 RT cores. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), so ray tracing APIs are available on both, but the hardware resources differ substantially. The NVIDIA part also includes tensor cores (48), which are absent from the AMD specification list.

The memory subsystems use different technologies: GDDR6 for AMD, LPDDR5X for NVIDIA. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the effective data rates differ (10.8 Gbps versus 6.4 Gbps), producing the bandwidth gap described earlier. The AMD part has no power connectors and a single-slot design, while the NVIDIA part lists no slot width and no power connectors, consistent with an integrated console GPU.

The AMD GPU connects via PCIe 4.0 x8 and outputs to 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The NVIDIA GPU lists no bus interface and no display outputs, reflecting its role as a chip within a console rather than a discrete card. The power supply recommendation for AMD is 250 W, while NVIDIA lists none.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32, versus 4.301 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU. That is an 83% advantage for AMD in single-precision floating-point performance.

Q: Which GPU offers more memory capacity?

A: The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has 12 GB of LPDDR5X memory, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 8 GB of GDDR6. The NVIDIA part holds 50% more data, but AMD has the higher bandwidth at 172.8 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API feature sets are identical in the database, so software compatibility does not separate them.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 1792 shading units, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has 1536. AMD also leads in TMUs (112 versus 48) and ROPs (64 versus 16).

Q: What is the power consumption of each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU has a TDP of 40 W and no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Are there any benchmark scores for these GPUs?

A: No. The database records no benchmark scores for either GPU. Both have an average benchmark score of zero, and the head-to-head benchmark section is empty. The only quantitative comparison comes from the recorded specification-derived rates.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 wins in FP32 compute, pixel fill rate, texture fill rate, and memory bandwidth. Its 7.885 TFLOPS, 70.40 GPixel/s, 123.2 GTexel/s, and 172.8 GB/s all exceed the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU's corresponding figures of 4.301 TFLOPS, 22.40 GPixel/s, 67.20 GTexel/s, and 102.4 GB/s. These advantages make it the stronger part for workloads that push raw rasterization throughput or single-precision math, such as traditional rendering pipelines and simulation tasks.

The AMD GPU also wins on physical design for a workstation context. It is a single-slot card with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, a 168 mm length, 69 mm height, and 20 mm width. It has no power connectors and runs at 55 W, making it a low-power discrete option. The database shows no bus interface limitations beyond PCIe 4.0 x8, and the suggested PSU is 250 W.

The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU wins in FP16 compute with 8.602 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS, a 9% lead. Its 48 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for tensor operations, which the AMD part does not list. It also offers 12 GB of memory versus 8 GB, a 50% capacity advantage. Its lower TDP (40 W) and smaller die (200 mm² versus 204 mm²) indicate a more power-efficient design in terms of absolute consumption.

The NVIDIA part also boosts higher (1400 MHz versus 1100 MHz) and has a higher base clock (561 MHz versus 330 MHz), but the AMD part compensates with more execution units. The AMD GPU has 28 RT cores versus 12 for NVIDIA, which suggests a stronger ray tracing hardware presence, though no benchmark data confirms real-world scaling.

The console context favors NVIDIA: the Switch 2 GPU has no display outputs, no bus interface, and dimensions (272 mm length, 116 mm height, 14 mm width) that fit a handheld or hybrid console chassis. The AMD part is a standalone workstation card. These are not competing in the same market segment, so the "win" depends entirely on the use case.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every recorded specification except memory bus width and API support. Both use a 128-bit memory bus. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both have a production status of Active and released in 2025.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip on RDNA 3.0 architecture with a 6 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU uses the GA10B chip on Ampere architecture with an 8 nm Samsung process. Transistor counts: 13,300 million for AMD, unknown for NVIDIA. Die size: 204 mm² for AMD, 200 mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds: AMD runs at 330 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost, NVIDIA at 561 MHz base and 1400 MHz boost. Memory clocks: AMD at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), NVIDIA at 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective).

Memory: AMD has 8 GB GDDR6, NVIDIA has 12 GB LPDDR5X. Bandwidth: 172.8 GB/s for AMD, 102.4 GB/s for NVIDIA. Shading units: 1792 versus 1536. TMUs: 112 versus 48. ROPs: 64 versus 16. RT cores: 28 versus 12. Tensor cores: none listed for AMD, 48 for NVIDIA.

Pixel rate: 70.40 GPixel/s versus 22.40 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 123.2 GTexel/s versus 67.20 GTexel/s. FP32: 7.885 TFLOPS versus 4.301 TFLOPS. FP16: 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 8.602 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: 55 W for AMD, 40 W for NVIDIA. Slot width: single-slot for AMD, not listed for NVIDIA. Power connectors: none for AMD, not listed for NVIDIA. Suggested PSU: 250 W for AMD, not listed for NVIDIA. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD, not listed for NVIDIA. Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1 for AMD, no outputs for NVIDIA.

Dimensions: AMD is 168 mm by 69 mm by 20 mm, NVIDIA is 272 mm by 116 mm by 14 mm. Launch MSRP: 449 USD for AMD, not listed for NVIDIA. The AMD part has a predecessor (Radeon Pro Vega), while the NVIDIA part has no predecessor or successor listed.