AMD Radeon PRO W7500 vs AMD Radeon RX 9060 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards split their benchmark wins, but the totals are lopsided: the AMD Radeon RX 9060 takes six of the nine head-to-head tests, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins three. The most decisive victory belongs to the RX 9060 in Geekbench OpenCL, where it posts 88,183 versus 58,213, a 34% lead. That gap is nearly mirrored in the opposite direction for Vulkan: the PRO W7500 scores 68,634 against 39,476, giving it a 73.9% advantage—the largest delta of any test in this comparison.

In Passmark’s suite, the RX 9060 dominates the DirectX legacy titles. It leads by 37.5% in DirectX 10 (104 vs. 65), by 31.3% in DirectX 11 (182 vs. 125), and by 28.6% in DirectX 9 (280 vs. 200). The PRO W7500’s only DirectX win is a narrow one: 46 vs. 44 in DirectX 12, a 4.5% margin that is statistically thin but still a win. The RX 9060 also takes the compute-heavy workloads, with Passmark GPU Compute at 9,919 vs. 5,910 (40.4% ahead) and Passmark G3D at 17,631 vs. 13,368 (24.2% ahead).

The PRO W7500’s third win comes in Passmark G2D, where it scores 1,174 against 1,002—a 17.2% edge that suggests stronger 2D rasterization throughput. Overall, the RX 9060’s average benchmark score is 16,014, slightly below the PRO W7500’s 16,415, which is a curious inversion given the head-to-head results. The PRO W7500’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, averages 16,408 (0% deltaPct), while the RX 9060 sits just 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti’s 16,129 and 1% behind both the AMD Radeon R9 370X and AMD Radeon RX 7700.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 9060 is the clear pick for compute-heavy and modern API workloads. Its 34% OpenCL lead and 40.4% Passmark GPU Compute advantage point to raw number-crunching strength. It also handles legacy DirectX titles with ease, beating the PRO W7500 by at least 28% in every DirectX 9 through 11 test. For anyone running older games or applications that rely on those APIs, the RX 9060 is the faster card. Its Passmark G3D score of 17,631 vs. 13,368 reinforces that it is the better general-purpose 3D performer.

The PRO W7500’s wins are more specialized. Its 73.9% Vulkan lead is massive, making it the better choice for Vulkan-based workloads—think Linux gaming or Vulkan-native renderers. The 4.5% DirectX 12 win, while small, indicates it holds up in the most modern DirectX API. The 17.2% G2D advantage suggests superior 2D performance, which can matter for desktop environments, CAD-like 2D views, or multi-monitor setups. The PRO W7500 also carries a workstation pedigree—its predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega—and its single-slot, 70W TDP profile makes it a fit for dense professional systems.

Neither card wins on raw average score: the PRO W7500’s 16,415 is only 2.5% above the RX 9060’s 16,014, and both sit at the 59th percentile among all GPUs. But the distribution of wins tells the story. The RX 9060 is the jack-of-all-trades with a bias toward compute and older DirectX; the PRO W7500 is the specialist with a Vulkan hammer and a modest DirectX 12 edge.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational. The PRO W7500 uses the Navi 33 chip on RDNA 3.0, built on TSMC’s 6nm process with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The RX 9060 steps up to Navi 44 on RDNA 4.0, using a 4nm process with 29,700 million transistors on a slightly smaller 199 mm² die. That is more than double the transistor count—2.23x—packed into a nearly identical area, yielding a transistor density of 149.2M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm². The RX 9060’s codename is Strix Point, while the PRO W7500 goes by Hotpink Bonefish.

Clock speeds favor the RX 9060 across the board. It boosts to 2990 MHz versus 1700 MHz, with a base clock of 1700 MHz against 1500 MHz. The RX 9060 also lists a game clock of 2400 MHz, which the PRO W7500 lacks entirely. Memory clocks differ too: the RX 9060 runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the PRO W7500 is at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective. This translates to 288.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 256.0 GB/s, a 12.5% advantage for the RX 9060.

Both cards share the same core counts: 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. Neither has tensor cores. The FP32 output tells the real story—the RX 9060 delivers 21.43 TFLOPS versus 12.19 TFLOPS, a 76% increase. FP16 also differs: the RX 9060 hits 21.43 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the PRO W7500 reaches 24.37 TFLOPS at 2:1, meaning the PRO W7500 actually has higher FP16 throughput if the workload can use the 2:1 rate. Pixel and texture rates follow the clock advantage: the RX 9060 posts 191.4 GPixel/s and 334.9 GTexel/s, against 108.8 GPixel/s and 190.4 GTexel/s for the PRO W7500.

Memory capacity and bus width are identical—8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus—but the RX 9060’s interface is PCIe 5.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8 on the PRO W7500. Display outputs differ: the PRO W7500 has four DisplayPort 2.1 connectors, while the RX 9060 has one HDMI 2.1b and two DisplayPort 2.1a. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 9060 belongs to the Radeon RX 9000 series and lists its predecessor as Navi III; the PRO W7500 is in the Radeon Pro Navi generation.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD Radeon RX 9060 if you need raw compute, modern API performance, or legacy DirectX compatibility. It wins OpenCL by 34%, GPU Compute by 40.4%, and every DirectX 9 through 11 test by at least 28%. Its 21.43 TFLOPS FP32 is nearly double the PRO W7500’s 12.19, and its 2990 MHz boost clock is the highest of the two. The 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth handles 1080p and 1440p gaming comfortably, and the dual-slot, 132W TDP is a reasonable trade for that performance. Its 1x 8-pin power connector and 300W suggested PSU are standard for a modern mid-range card.

Pick the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 if Vulkan is your primary API or if you need a low-profile professional card. Its 73.9% Vulkan lead is decisive, and the 4.5% DirectX 12 win shows it is not obsolete. The 70W TDP with no power connectors means it can drop into existing workstations without PSU upgrades, and the single-slot design is rare among modern cards. The 17.2% G2D edge helps in 2D-heavy professional applications. Its 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs are more flexible for multi-monitor professional setups than the RX 9060’s mixed HDMI/DP set. The launch MSRP is 429 USD, which is a data point, but the decision should hinge on workload fit.

The data does not crown a universal winner. The RX 9060 is faster in more tests and has better compute throughput, but the PRO W7500’s Vulkan dominance and power profile make it the smarter buy for specific professional environments. If you are building a gaming or general-purpose PC, take the RX 9060. If you are populating a render farm that runs Vulkan or need a single-slot card for a dense server, the PRO W7500 is the one.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 9060 wins six of the nine tests, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins three.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The PRO W7500 leads by 73.9% in Geekbench Vulkan (68,634 vs. 39,476), which is the largest delta of any shared test.

Q: Do they have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but the RX 9060 has higher bandwidth at 288.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more shading units and ray tracing cores?

A: They are identical: both have 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The PRO W7500 averages 16,415, which is 2.5% higher than the RX 9060’s 16,014, and both sit at the 59th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The PRO W7500 has a 70W TDP with no power connectors and a 250W suggested PSU, while the RX 9060 has a 132W TDP, one 8-pin connector, and a 300W suggested PSU.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon PRO W7500 | AMD Radeon RX 9060 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | RDNA 4.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 29,700 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 199 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1500 MHz | 1700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1700 MHz | 2990 MHz |

| Game Clock | N/A | 2400 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| FP32 | 12.19 TFLOPS | 21.43 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1) | 21.43 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 108.8 GPixel/s | 191.4 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 190.4 GTexel/s | 334.9 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 70 W | 132 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a |

| Release Date | 2023-08-02 | 2025-08-04 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Navi III |

| Launch MSRP | 429 USD | N/A |