AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7700 Comparison

# AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 and AMD Radeon PRO W7600 are both RDNA 3.0 workstation cards, but they occupy clearly different tiers. The W7700 uses the larger Navi 32 chip with 28,100 million transistors on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the W7600 uses Navi 33 with 13,300 million transistors on a 6 nm TSMC process. Benchmark results show the W7700 winning both head-to-head tests, with its average benchmark score of 118,976 sitting 36.6% above the W7600's 87,108. The W7700 also ranks in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 93rd percentile for the W7600.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the W7700 scoring 108,245 against the W7600's 81,528. That is a 32.8% advantage for the larger card. This delta is substantial enough to translate into real workload differences in OpenCL-accelerated applications, where the W7700's additional shading units and memory bandwidth give it a clear edge. The W7600's score still places it competitively — its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, sits just 0.4% behind at 87,445, meaning the W7600 is roughly on par with that older flagship.

The Vulkan results widen the gap further. The W7700 posts 129,706, while the W7600 reaches 92,688 — a 39.9% difference. Vulkan workloads often scale well with raw compute resources, and the data reflects that: the W7700 has 3,072 shading units against 2,048 on the W7600, and the W7700's FP32 throughput of 31.95 TFLOPS is 59.8% higher than the W7600's 19.99 TFLOPS. The W7700 also doubles the pixel rate (249.6 GPixel/s vs 156.2 GPixel/s) and texture rate (499.2 GTexel/s vs 312.3 GTexel/s), which helps explain why the Vulkan delta is even larger than the OpenCL one.

In both tests, the W7700 wins outright. The W7600 has no benchmark victory to claim. The nearest rival data for each card puts the W7700's average score 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GB10 and 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, while the W7600's average score is 4.4% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile and 5% behind the desktop RTX A4500. This places the two AMD cards in different competitive brackets: the W7700 trades blows with recent NVIDIA professional cards, while the W7600 sits closer to older or mobile NVIDIA parts.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: the W7700 is the faster card by a wide margin in both available benchmarks, with a 32.8% lead in OpenCL and a 39.9% lead in Vulkan. If your work depends on raw compute performance in these APIs, the W7700 is the clear choice. The W7600 is not without merit — it delivers 19.99 TFLOPS FP32 and 8 GB of VRAM in a single-slot, 130 W package, making it suitable for constrained chassis or power-limited builds. But the performance gap is consistent and large.

The W7700's 16 GB memory capacity versus 8 GB on the W7600 is another decisive factor. Memory bandwidth tells the same story: 576.0 GB/s on the W7700 against 288.0 GB/s on the W7600. For GPU-accelerated rendering, simulation, or AI inference where dataset sizes exceed 8 GB, the W7600 simply cannot fit the working set, regardless of its compute capabilities. The W7700's 95th percentile ranking versus the W7600's 93rd percentile reinforces that the larger card is the more capable overall GPU.

The W7600 does have advantages worth noting: it is a single-slot card, while the W7700 is dual-slot. The W7600's TDP is 130 W versus 190 W, and its suggested PSU is 300 W versus 450 W. It also uses a single 6-pin power connector instead of the W7700's 8-pin. These physical and power characteristics make the W7600 easier to integrate into compact workstations, but the performance penalty is steep.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 108,245, which is 32.8% higher than the W7600's 81,528.

Q: How much VRAM does each card have?

A: The W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The W7700 delivers 576.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, exactly double the W7600's 288.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the W7600 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The W7700 wins both the Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests, with 2 wins and 0 losses total.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The W7700 has a TDP of 190 W with a suggested 450 W PSU and one 8-pin connector. The W7600 has a TDP of 130 W with a suggested 300 W PSU and one 6-pin connector.

Q: How do these cards compare to NVIDIA rivals?

A: The W7700's average score is 1.3% above the NVIDIA GB10 and 1.6% above the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation. The W7600's average score is 0.4% above the Quadro GP100 but 4.4% below the RTX A4500 Mobile and 5% below the RTX A4500.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip built on a 5 nm TSMC process, while the W7600 uses Navi 33 on a 6 nm process. Transistor counts are 28,100 million versus 13,300 million, and die sizes are 346 mm² versus 204 mm². The W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, against the W7600's 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Ray tracing cores are 48 on the W7700 and 32 on the W7600.

Clock speeds differ as well: the W7700 has a 1900 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost, while the W7600 runs at 1720 MHz base and 2440 MHz boost. Memory configurations are distinct — 16 GB on a 256-bit bus versus 8 GB on a 128-bit bus, with bandwidth at 576.0 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s. Pixel rate is 249.6 GPixel/s versus 156.2 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 499.2 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 31.95 TFLOPS versus 19.99 TFLOPS, with FP16 at 63.90 TFLOPS versus 39.98 TFLOPS.

Physical and power specifications diverge too. The W7700 is a dual-slot card with a 190 W TDP and a single 8-pin power connector, requiring a 450 W suggested PSU. The W7600 is a single-slot card with a 130 W TDP, one 6-pin connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. Both measure 241 mm in length, but the W7700 is 111 mm tall versus 115 mm on the W7600. The bus interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the W7700, PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W7600. Display outputs are identical at 4x DisplayPort 2.1, and both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, but they use different chips with different codenames. The W7700's chip is "Wheat Nas" (Navi 32), while the W7600's is "Hotpink Bonefish" (Navi 33). Both belong to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The W7700 is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the W7600 uses a 6 nm process at the same foundry. This process difference contributes to the W7700's higher transistor density of 81.2M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm² on the W7600.

Both cards lack dedicated tensor cores, a notable omission for certain AI workloads. They share the same API support, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, so software compatibility is not a differentiator. The W7700's larger die (346 mm² vs 204 mm²) accommodates more compute units, ray accelerators, and memory interfaces. The W7600's smaller chip and lower power envelope make it more thermally manageable, but the architectural core is the same RDNA 3.0 design. The W7700's 48 RT cores versus 32 on the W7600 gives it a 50% advantage in ray tracing hardware, though no ray tracing benchmark data is provided in the results.

Where Each One Wins

The W7700 wins in every measured performance category. It is 32.8% ahead in Geekbench OpenCL and 39.9% ahead in Geekbench Vulkan. Its 16 GB frame buffer and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large datasets, high-resolution textures, and multi-GPU rendering scenarios where memory capacity is the bottleneck. The 95th percentile ranking places it among the top GPUs in the database, with nearest rivals including the NVIDIA GB10 and RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation — both of which it edges out by 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively.

The W7600's wins are not in raw performance but in physical and power characteristics. It is a single-slot card with a 130 W TDP, making it the better choice for space-constrained or power-limited systems. Its 300 W suggested PSU requirement and single 6-pin connector mean it can drop into existing builds without PSU upgrades. The W7600 still ranks in the 93rd percentile, and its average score of 87,108 is within 0.4% of the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, so it is not a slow card — it is simply outclassed by the W7700. For workloads that fit within 8 GB of VRAM and do not demand the W7700's compute throughput, the W7600 offers a more compact, lower-power alternative. But the data is unambiguous: the W7700 dominates in every benchmark result available.