AMD Radeon PRO W7500 vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 has a full suite of nine benchmark scores, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU has no recorded benchmark results at all. The database shows zero wins for either product in direct head-to-head testing, and the head-to-head benchmark table is empty. This means any comparison of raw performance must rely exclusively on the W7500's measured scores and the Rubin GPU's architectural specifications.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 achieves an average benchmark score of 16,415 across all tests. Its strongest showing is in Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 68,634, followed by Geekbench OpenCL at 58,213. In the Passmark suite, the card records a G3D score of 13,368, a G2D score of 1,174, and a GPU compute score of 5,910. Legacy DirectX tests show scores of 200 in DirectX 9, 125 in DirectX 11, 65 in DirectX 10, and 46 in DirectX 12.

The W7500's percentile ranking against all GPUs is 59, placing it just above the median. Its nearest rivals in the database are tightly clustered. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell has an average score of 16,408, a delta of 0 percent from the W7500. The AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT scores 16,361, a 0.3 percent difference. The AMD Radeon Pro 5600M scores 16,351, a 0.4 percent difference. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 D V2 scores 16,504, which is 0.5 percent higher than the W7500. These four rivals sit within a 0.9 percent band, indicating the W7500 delivers performance nearly identical to its closest peers.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has no benchmarks, no average score, and no nearest rivals listed. Its percentile is set at 50, which is a neutral default rather than a measured result. The data therefore cannot show how the Rubin GPU performs in any workload. The only quantitative performance figure available is its theoretical FP32 throughput of 130.0 TFLOPS, compared to the W7500's 12.19 TFLOPS. That is a 10.7 times difference in raw compute specification, but without measured benchmarks, the database provides no confirmation of actual application performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and market segments. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 uses the Navi 33 chip, built on RDNA 3.0 architecture with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses the GR100 chip, built on the Rubin architecture, and belongs to the Server Rubin generation. The production status for both is listed as active.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The W7500 is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². The Rubin GPU uses a 3 nm process, also at TSMC, with 336,000 million transistors on a 1,456 mm² die, achieving a density of 230.8 million per mm². The Rubin GPU has 25.3 times more transistors and a die that is 7.1 times larger, with a density 3.5 times higher.

Memory configurations are equally divergent. The W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Clock speeds are 1,500 MHz base and 1,700 MHz boost, with memory running at 2,000 MHz or 16 Gbps effective. The Rubin GPU packs 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16,384-bit bus, delivering 22.1 TB/s of bandwidth. Its base clock is 700 MHz, but the boost clock reaches 2,267 MHz, with memory at 2,695 MHz or 10.8 Gbps effective.

Compute resources show the scale of the Rubin GPU. It has 28,672 shading units, 896 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units. The W7500 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Rubin GPU also includes 896 tensor cores, while the W7500 lists no tensor cores. The W7500 has 28 ray tracing cores; the Rubin GPU's RT core count is not recorded. Pixel rates are 108.8 GPixel/s for the W7500 and 54.41 GPixel/s for the Rubin GPU. Texture rates are 190.4 GTexel/s and 2,031.2 GTexel/s respectively. FP16 compute is 24.37 TFLOPS for the W7500 and 260.0 TFLOPS for the Rubin GPU, both at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32.

Power and physical specifications could not be more different. The W7500 has a 70 W TDP, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W power supply. It measures 216 mm by 115 mm by 20 mm. The Rubin GPU has a 2,300 W TDP, uses an SXM module form factor, and suggests a 2,700 W power supply. Its dimensions are not recorded. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7500 and PCIe 6.0 x16 for the Rubin GPU.

Display capabilities also separate the two. The W7500 has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin GPU has no display outputs and its API support is listed as N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan. This confirms the Rubin GPU is a compute-oriented server part, not a graphics workstation product.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear segmentation. The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is a workstation graphics card with measured performance, display outputs, and a launch MSRP of 429 USD. Its benchmark scores place it at the 59th percentile, effectively tied with the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, RX 5700 XT, Radeon Pro 5600M, and RTX 5090 D V2, all within 0.5 percent. It is suited for tasks that require rendering, display output, and standard graphics APIs.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a server compute accelerator with no measured benchmarks and no display outputs. Its theoretical specifications are enormous, including 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 and 22.1 TB/s memory bandwidth, but the database contains no verification of real-world performance. It uses an SXM module, requires a 2,700 W power supply, and supports no conventional graphics APIs.

The choice depends on workload. The W7500 is the only one of the two with any recorded performance data. The Rubin GPU's specifications suggest extreme compute throughput, but the absence of benchmark scores means the database cannot confirm how that translates into application results. The data shows the W7500 is a capable, measured workstation GPU, while the Rubin GPU remains an unverified server part with massive theoretical resources.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the AMD Radeon PRO W7500?

A: The average benchmark score is 16,415, with a percentile ranking of 59 against all GPUs.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Rubin GPU have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists no benchmarks, an average score of 0, and no nearest rivals for the Rubin GPU.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16,384-bit bus.

Q: What are the power requirements for each GPU?

A: The W7500 has a TDP of 70 W and suggests a 250 W power supply. The Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2,300 W and suggests a 2,700 W power supply.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Rubin GPU support display outputs?

A: No. The Rubin GPU is listed with no outputs, while the W7500 has four DisplayPort 2.1 connections.

Q: What is the transistor count of each chip?

A: The W7500's Navi 33 chip has 13,300 million transistors. The Rubin GPU's GR100 chip has 336,000 million transistors.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 wins in every measured category, simply because it is the only product with recorded benchmarks. It delivers a Geekbench Vulkan score of 68,634 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 58,213. In Passmark tests, it achieves 13,368 in G3D, 5,910 in GPU compute, and 1,174 in G2D. It also provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and fits in a single slot with a 70 W TDP. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, is a statistical tie at 0 percent delta, and the RTX 5090 D V2 is only 0.5 percent ahead.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU wins on raw specification sheet comparisons. Its FP32 throughput of 130.0 TFLOPS is 10.7 times higher than the W7500's 12.19 TFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput of 260.0 TFLOPS compares to 24.37 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth of 22.1 TB/s is 86.3 times the W7500's 256.0 GB/s. The 288 GB memory capacity is 36 times larger. The 896 tensor cores provide dedicated AI compute hardware that the W7500 lacks entirely. The PCIe 6.0 x16 interface offers substantially higher bus bandwidth than PCIe 4.0 x8.

The use-case split is stark. The W7500 is the choice for any workload requiring graphics output, standard API support, or a conventional workstation form factor. It is also the only option with verified performance data. The Rubin GPU is positioned for server compute environments where display output is irrelevant, where the SXM module form factor is appropriate, and where the theoretical compute and memory resources are needed. The 2,300 W TDP and 2,700 W suggested power supply place it firmly in data center infrastructure.

The database shows no direct head-to-head benchmarks and zero wins for either product in such testing. This means the performance relationship between the two is not empirically established. The W7500's measured scores and the Rubin GPU's theoretical specifications exist in separate domains. For any user requiring confirmed performance, the W7500 is the only product with data. For any user requiring massive compute resources in a server context, the Rubin GPU's specifications are the only available information, but they remain unverified by any recorded benchmark.