AMD Radeon PRO W7500 vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation, which wins 8 of the 9 recorded head-to-head tests. The largest margin comes in DirectX 12, where the NVIDIA card scores 71 versus the AMD Radeon PRO W7500's 46, a 54.3% advantage. This is a substantial gap for a modern API workload and indicates the NVIDIA architecture handles the low-level draw call and feature-set demands of DX12 much more efficiently.

Compute performance follows a similar pattern. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX 2000 Ada scores 78074 against 58213, a 34.1% lead. The GPU compute test from Passmark shows a 32.6% win for NVIDIA, with scores of 7834 versus 5910. For any workstation tasks that rely heavily on general-purpose compute, whether scientific simulation, rendering, or simulation preprocessing, the data consistently favors the NVIDIA card. The DirectX 10 result also shows a strong NVIDIA advantage, with 82 points versus 65 points, a 26.2% delta.

The DirectX 11 test narrows the gap somewhat, but NVIDIA still wins 138 to 26.4% ahead of the AMD card's 125, a 10.4% delta. The oldest legacy DirectX 9 test shows the smallest margin of the modern tests, with NVIDIA's 216 points beating the AMD's 200, only 8% ahead. Vulkan performance also favors NVIDIA, with a 21.6% lead in Geekbench Vulkan: 83360 versus 68634.

The single AMD win comes in the Passmark G2D test, which measures 2D desktop and interface performance. Here the Radeon PRO W7500 scores 1174 against NVIDIA's 1072, an 8.1% advantage. This is a narrow win for AMD, but it is a much smaller margin than NVIDIA's wins in most other categories. The overall 3D gaming and 3D workload test, Passmark G3D, shows NVIDIA winning 16927 to 13368, a 26.6% delta.

Aggregating all benchmarks, the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation averages 18954 points, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 averages 16415 points. The NVIDIA card sits at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD card sits at the 59th percentile. The nearest rival comparisons place NVIDIA within 0.5% of its closest competitors, with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 at 19036 average and the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 at 19030 average sitting right around the NVIDIA's score. The AMD card's closest rival is listed as the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT at 16361 average.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher peak compute throughput?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 has a slightly higher recorded FP32 throughput of 12.19 TFLOPS, just ahead of NVIDIA's 12.00 TFLOPS. However, the NVIDIA card wins in actual compute tests, including a 34.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: How do the two compare in memory capacity?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory, exactly half the capacity. Both share the same 128-bit memory bus and the same 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports the latest display output standard for display connections?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 supports 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, the newer standard. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs instead.

Q: Is there a difference in graphics API support between the two?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card also includes 88 tensor cores and 22 RT cores, while the AMD card has 28 RT cores and no listed tensor cores.

Q: What is the difference in physical size between the two?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a dual-slot card measuring 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is a single-slot card measuring 216 mm in length, 115 mm in height, and 20 mm in width.

Q: Do they require different power supplies?

A: Both cards have a TDP of 70 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, and neither requires power connectors. The NVIDIA card is dual-slot while the AMD card is single-slot.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the clear choice for most compute and 3D workloads. Its wins span every 3D API tested, from DirectX 9 through DirectX 12, plus Vulkan, OpenCL, and the Passmark GPU compute test. The largest margin is in DirectX 12, where it is 54.3% ahead, and it is also 32.6% ahead in GPU compute. For rendering, simulation, and any task that exercises the GPU's full 3D pipeline, the data points strongly to NVIDIA. The 16 GB memory capacity also provides a substantial capacity advantage over the AMD card's 8 GB, a factor in large datasets or complex scenes.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins only in the 2D Passmark G2D test, where it scores 8.7% higher than NVIDIA. This suggests a minor edge in desktop compositing and basic 2D interface tasks, but it is a single narrow result. The AMD card also posts a higher FP32 compute rating of 12.19 TFLOPS versus NVIDIA's 12.00 TFLOPS, and it has a higher pixel rate of 108.8 GPixel/s versus NVIDIA's 102.2 GPixel/s, as well as a higher texture rate of 190.4 GTexel/s versus 187.4 GTexel/s. These theoretical advantages do not translate into wins in the actual benchmark suite, where NVIDIA dominates.

The AMD card's single-slot design and its physical size (216 mm length, 115 mm height, 20 mm width) may be a factor in dense multi-GPU systems or small chassis where a dual-slot card like the NVIDIA (168 mm length, 69 mm height) will not fit. The AMD card also offers newer DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, which may be relevant for driving the latest high refresh rate monitors or display configurations.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every architectural specification. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip with the Ada Lovelace architecture, built on TSMC's 5 nm process. It has 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, built on TSMC's 6 nm process. It has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. The NVIDIA card has a higher transistor density of 118.9M per mm² versus AMD's 65.2M per mm².

Clock speeds differ, with the NVIDIA card running at 1620 MHz base and 2130 MHz boost, while the AMD card runs at 1500 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. Memory configuration differs significantly: the NVIDIA card has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the AMD card has 8 GB of GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus. Both have the same 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has 2816 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 48 ROPs, while the AMD card has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The NVIDIA card also includes 88 tensor cores and 22 RT cores, while the AMD card has 28 RT cores and no tensor cores.

The NVIDIA card is dual-slot and measures 168 mm by 69 mm, while the AMD card is single-slot and measures 216 mm by 115 mm by 20 mm. The NVIDIA card has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the AMD card has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. Both share the same PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, the same 70 W TDP, the same 250 W suggested PSU, and neither requires power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is a tale of two design philosophies. NVIDIA's AD107 chip uses the Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 18,900 million transistors into a 159 mm² die. This is a high-density design with a transistor density of 118.9M per mm². The AMD Navi 33 chip uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on TSMC's 6 nm process, containing 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a much lower transistor density of 65.2M per mm².

The NVIDIA card includes 88 tensor cores and 22 RT cores, bringing dedicated AI acceleration and ray tracing hardware to the workstation segment. The AMD card has 28 RT cores but no tensor cores. The shading unit counts differ, with NVIDIA at 2816 and AMD at 1792, but AMD has more TMUs (112 versus 88) and more ROPs (64 versus 48). This leads to different peak rates: NVIDIA has a texture rate of 187.4 GTexel/s versus AMD's 190.4 GTexel/s, and NVIDIA has a pixel rate of 102.2 GPixel/s versus AMD's 108.8 GPixel/s.

The FP16 capability shows a major difference. The NVIDIA card delivers 12.00 TFLOPS FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32, while the AMD card delivers 24.37 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio to FP32. This means the AMD card has a much higher peak FP16 throughput, but its FP32 output is similar (12.19 TFLOPS versus NVIDIA's 12.00 TFLOPS). The NVIDIA card's FP16 and FP32 performance are identical, while the AMD card doubles its FP16 throughput relative to FP32.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API feature support is on par. The NVIDIA card is part of the Workstation Ada generation with a 2024 release, while the AMD card is from the Radeon Pro Navi series with a 2023 release.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the stronger performer across nearly every workload tested. It wins 8 of 9 head-to-head tests, with decisive leads in DirectX 12 (54.3%), Geekbench OpenCL (34.1%), Passmark GPU compute (32.6%), and Passmark G3D (26.6%). Its average benchmark score of 18954 places it at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the AMD card's 16415 average and 59th percentile.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 has a single win in the 2D Passmark G2D test, an 8.7% advantage, and it offers a newer DisplayPort 2.1 output and a single-slot form factor. It also has a higher theoretical FP32 rating of 12.19 TFLOPS and higher pixel and texture rates, but these do not materialize into benchmark wins. The AMD card's 8 GB memory capacity is half of the NVIDIA card's 16 GB, which is a critical limitation for large workstation workloads.

For users whose primary concern is raw compute, 3D rendering, or GPU compute acceleration, the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation is the clear pick. Its 16 GB memory capacity and strong performance across all modern APIs make it the more capable workstation card. The AMD card may appeal to those who need a single-slot solution with DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and do not require the extra memory capacity, but the benchmark results show it trails NVIDIA in almost every measurable performance category.