AMD Radeon PRO W7500 vs AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT and AMD Radeon PRO W7500 share the same Navi 33 chip, the same RDNA 3.0 architecture, and the same 6 nm TSMC process, yet they are engineered for entirely different workloads. The benchmark data reveals a clear split: the RX 7600 XT dominates in raw compute and legacy DirectX tests, while the PRO W7500 counters in Vulkan and 2D performance. With 7 wins for the RX 7600 XT and 2 for the PRO W7500 across the head-to-head suite, the numbers tell a story of specialization over raw parity.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in the entire comparison comes from Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 7600 XT scores 92,426 against the PRO W7500’s 58,213. That is a 58.8% advantage, the largest delta in any test. This is not a marginal edge; it suggests the RX 7600 XT’s higher shading unit count — 2,048 versus 1,792 — and its much higher boost clock of 2,755 MHz against 1,700 MHz translate directly into compute throughput. The FP32 figures confirm this: the RX 7600 XT delivers 22.57 TFLOPS while the PRO W7500 manages 12.19 TFLOPS, nearly half.

PassMark GPU Compute reinforces the same trend, with the RX 7600 XT posting 8,987 versus 5,910, a 52.1% lead. That test is often a proxy for general-purpose compute workloads, and the gap is consistent with the OpenCL result. The RX 7600 XT also wins PassMark G3D by a wide margin: 17,132 against 13,368, a 28.2% difference. This is the overall 3D performance score, and it places the RX 7600 XT in a different performance tier despite both cards sharing the same die.

The DirectX results are uniformly in favor of the RX 7600 XT. In DirectX 12, the RX 7600 XT scores 65 versus 46, a 41.3% lead. DirectX 11 shows 167 versus 125, a 33.6% advantage. Even DirectX 10, which is an older API, shows a 30.8% gap (85 versus 65). DirectX 9 is closer but still favors the RX 7600 XT: 228 versus 200, a 14% lead. These are not small differences, and they suggest that the RX 7600 XT’s higher clock speeds and extra execution resources matter more in legacy API paths than the PRO W7500’s optimizations.

The PRO W7500 does win one significant compute test: Geekbench Vulkan. Here the PRO W7500 scores 68,634 against the RX 7600 XT’s 48,366, a 29.5% reversal. This is notable because Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead API used in both gaming and professional applications. The PRO W7500’s FP16 throughput of 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) versus the RX 7600 XT’s 22.57 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) may explain this, as Vulkan workloads can leverage FP16 more aggressively. The PRO W7500 also wins PassMark G2D, scoring 1,174 against 1,030, a 12.3% edge in 2D graphics performance.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7600 XT is the clear winner for any workload that relies on DirectX, whether that is gaming, legacy applications, or general 3D rendering. Its 41.3% lead in DirectX 12 and 33.6% lead in DirectX 11 are decisive. It also dominates OpenCL compute by 58.8%, making it the better choice for GPU-accelerated compute tasks that use that API. The PassMark G3D score of 17,132 versus 13,368 further cements its position for traditional 3D graphics workloads. If the task involves rasterization, the RX 7600 XT’s 176.3 GPixel/s pixel rate against the PRO W7500’s 108.8 GPixel/s is a fundamental hardware advantage that shows up across all these tests.

The PRO W7500 wins in Vulkan, which is increasingly important for cross-platform applications and modern game engines. Its 68,634 Geekbench Vulkan score is 29.5% higher than the RX 7600 XT’s, and this is not a trivial metric. Vulkan is the API of choice for many professional visualization tools and newer titles, so this win cannot be dismissed. The PRO W7500 also wins in 2D performance, with a 12.3% higher PassMark G2D score. For desktop environments, CAD 2D views, or any application that stresses 2D blitting, the PRO W7500 has an edge.

The pattern is clear: the RX 7600 XT wins where brute compute and legacy API support matter, while the PRO W7500 wins where modern API efficiency and 2D rendering are prioritized. The 7-2 win split for the RX 7600 XT suggests it is the more broadly capable card, but the PRO W7500’s Vulkan victory is a substantial counterpoint.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the Navi 33 chip, which is a RDNA 3.0 architecture part with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. They share the same 6 nm process from TSMC, the same 13,300 million transistors, and the same 204 mm² die size. The transistor density is identical at 65.2M per mm². This means the architectural foundation is exactly the same; the differences come from how AMD configured the silicon for each product.

The RX 7600 XT has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The PRO W7500 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and the same 64 ROPs. The RX 7600 XT also has 32 ray tracing cores versus 28 on the PRO W7500. These are not trivial differences; the RX 7600 XT has 14.3% more shading units and TMUs, which directly translates to its higher FP32 throughput of 22.57 TFLOPS versus 12.19 TFLOPS.

The clock speeds are dramatically different. The RX 7600 XT runs at a base clock of 1,980 MHz and boosts to 2,755 MHz, with a game clock of 2,470 MHz. The PRO W7500 runs at a base clock of 1,500 MHz and boosts to 1,700 MHz. That is a 62% higher boost clock for the RX 7600 XT. This clock advantage is the primary reason why the RX 7600 XT wins so many tests despite the shared architecture. The PRO W7500’s FP16 performance of 24.37 TFLOPS is higher than its FP32 because it uses a 2:1 ratio, while the RX 7600 XT offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning both are 22.57 TFLOPS.

The PRO W7500 is a professional-grade card, and its lower clocks are likely a deliberate choice for stability and power efficiency. The TDP figures confirm this: the RX 7600 XT is rated at 190 W, while the PRO W7500 is rated at just 70 W. That is a 120 W difference, which affects cooling requirements and system power draw. The RX 7600 XT requires a dual-slot cooler and a 1x 8-pin power connector, while the PRO W7500 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W versus 450 W.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is memory capacity. The RX 7600 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6, while the PRO W7500 has 8 GB. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the RX 7600 XT’s memory runs at 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the PRO W7500’s memory runs at 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) yielding 256.0 GB/s. The RX 7600 XT has a 12.5% bandwidth advantage.

The display outputs differ: the RX 7600 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, while the PRO W7500 offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The PRO W7500 lacks HDMI entirely. The physical dimensions are close: the RX 7600 XT is 204 mm long and 115 mm high, while the PRO W7500 is 216 mm long, 115 mm high, and 20 mm wide. The PRO W7500 is longer but thinner, fitting a single-slot form factor.

The RX 7600 XT has a launch MSRP of 329 USD, while the PRO W7500 has a launch MSRP of 429 USD. The release dates are also different: the RX 7600 XT launched on 2024-01-23, while the PRO W7500 launched on 2023-08-02. The RX 7600 XT’s predecessor is Navi II and its successor is Navi IV, while the PRO W7500’s predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega and it has no successor listed.

The bus interface is identical at PCIe 4.0 x8, and both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The PRO W7500’s average benchmark score is 16,415, placing it in the 59th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 7600 XT averages 17,083, in the 60th percentile. These are remarkably close percentile rankings, despite the individual test deltas.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT has an average benchmark score of 17,083, which is 4.1% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7500’s 16,415. Both cards sit within one percentile point of each other, with the RX 7600 XT at the 60th percentile and the PRO W7500 at the 59th.

Q: Is the PRO W7500 better at any compute test?

A: Yes, the PRO W7500 wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 68,634 against the RX 7600 XT’s 48,366, a 29.5% advantage. This is likely due to its higher FP16 throughput of 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) compared to the RX 7600 XT’s 22.57 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

Q: How much faster is the RX 7600 XT in OpenCL?

A: The RX 7600 XT scores 92,426 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 58.8% higher than the PRO W7500’s 58,213. This is the largest performance gap in any head-to-head test between the two cards.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 7600 XT has a memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s, while the PRO W7500 has 256.0 GB/s. The RX 7600 XT’s advantage is 12.5%, supported by its higher memory clock of 2,250 MHz versus 2,000 MHz.

Q: Do both cards use the same chip?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 use the Navi 33 chip, built on RDNA 3.0 architecture with a 6 nm TSMC process. They share the same 13,300 million transistors and 204 mm² die size.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 7600 XT has a boost clock of 2,755 MHz, while the PRO W7500 has a boost clock of 1,700 MHz. That is a 62% difference in favor of the RX 7600 XT.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT is the more powerful card in almost every measurable way. It wins 7 of 9 head-to-head benchmarks, including all DirectX tests, OpenCL, and PassMark G3D. Its 58.8% lead in OpenCL and 41.3% lead in DirectX 12 are overwhelming. The RX 7600 XT also has double the memory (16 GB versus 8 GB), higher bandwidth (288.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s), more shading units (2,048 versus 1,792), and a significantly higher boost clock (2,755 MHz versus 1,700 MHz). For any user prioritizing raw performance, gaming, or general compute, the RX 7600 XT is the obvious pick.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is not without merit. Its 29.5% win in Geekbench Vulkan shows that it can outperform the RX 7600 XT in modern API workloads, and its 12.3% win in PassMark G2D indicates superior 2D rendering. Its 70 W TDP versus 190 W makes it far more power-efficient, and its single-slot form factor with no power connectors is a significant advantage for space-constrained professional systems. The PRO W7500’s lower FP32 performance (12.19 TFLOPS versus 22.57 TFLOPS) is a direct consequence of its lower clocks, but its FP16 performance is actually higher at 24.37 TFLOPS versus 22.57 TFLOPS, which explains its Vulkan strength.

The verdict depends on the use case. The RX 7600 XT is for those who need maximum frame rates, higher memory capacity, and broad API support. The PRO W7500 is for those who prioritize power efficiency, single-slot density, and Vulkan-specific workloads, particularly in professional environments where stability and low power draw are paramount. The RX 7600 XT’s higher average score of 17,083 and 60th percentile ranking versus the PRO W7500’s 16,415 and 59th percentile suggest that, on average, the RX 7600 XT is the better performer. But the PRO W7500’s wins in Vulkan and 2D are not negligible, and for a specific subset of professional tasks, it may be the more appropriate tool. The numbers do not lie: the RX 7600 XT is the faster card, but the PRO W7500 is the more specialized one.