AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7900 Comparison

AMD Radeon PRO W7900 and AMD Radeon PRO W7600 are both active RDNA 3.0 workstation cards, but they target very different segments of the market. The W7900 sits at the top of the stack with a 94th percentile rank among all GPUs, while the W7600 is a more modest performer at the 93rd percentile. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the W7900 winning both head-to-head benchmarks, but the gap between them varies dramatically depending on the workload—just 3.5% in OpenCL compute, but a massive 47.9% in Vulkan graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more VRAM?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has 8 GB on a 128-bit bus. That’s a six-fold difference in capacity and exactly three times the bus width.

Q: How do the cards compare in raw compute performance?

A: The W7900 delivers 61.32 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is over three times the 19.99 TFLOPS of the W7600. In FP16, the W7900 maintains a 1:1 ratio at 61.32 TFLOPS, while the W7600 achieves 39.98 TFLOPS through a 2:1 ratio, meaning it halves its rate for FP16.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The W7900 has a 295 W TDP and requires a 600 W power supply with two 8-pin connectors. The W7600 has a 130 W TDP, needs only a 300 W PSU, and uses a single 6-pin connector. The W7600 also occupies a single slot, whereas the W7900 is a triple-slot card.

Q: Which card is better for Vulkan-based workloads?

A: The W7900 wins decisively in the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 137070 versus 92688 for the W7600. That is a 47.9% advantage for the W7900, making it the clear choice for graphics-heavy tasks that leverage Vulkan.

Q: Are the architecture and API support the same?

A: Both cards use the RDNA 3.0 architecture and support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, the W7900 uses the Navi 31 chip on a 5 nm process, while the W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip on a 6 nm process.

Q: What are the output options?

A: The W7900 has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The W7600 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1, with no mini-DisplayPort option.

Where Each One Wins

The W7900 is the outright winner in every measured benchmark, but the degree of its dominance tells you where it matters most. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the W7900 leads by 47.9%, which suggests a massive advantage in graphics-heavy workloads like real-time rendering, viewport performance, and GPU-accelerated visualization. This is the card for tasks that stress the graphics pipeline rather than pure compute.

The W7600, while losing both tests, is far closer in OpenCL compute. Its 81528 score trails the W7900’s 84379 by only 3.5%, meaning that for general-purpose compute tasks—think simulation, data processing, or non-graphics acceleration—the W7600 offers nearly the same performance per dollar, though it lacks the VRAM capacity for large datasets.

The W7600 also wins on physical footprint and power efficiency. At 130 W TDP and single-slot design, it fits into workstations where the 295 W, triple-slot W7900 simply won’t. The W7600’s 8 GB VRAM is adequate for lighter workloads, but the W7900’s 48 GB is essential for massive scenes, multi-GPU rendering, or AI models that exceed 8 GB.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the RDNA 3.0 architecture, but they are built on different chips and processes. The W7900 uses the Navi 31 chip, codenamed Plum Bonito, fabricated on TSMC’s 5 nm process. It packs 57,700 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, on a 6 nm process, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die at 65.2M per mm².

The core configurations diverge sharply. The W7900 has 6144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 192 ROPs, and 96 ray tracing cores. The W7600 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 RT cores. That is exactly three times the shading units and TMUs, and three times the RT cores, aligning with the FP32 performance ratio.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The W7900’s 48 GB GDDR6 runs on a 384-bit bus, delivering 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7600’s 8 GB GDDR6 uses a 128-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s—exactly one-third of the W7900’s bandwidth. Both run memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), so the bandwidth difference is purely bus-width driven.

Specification Differences

The most obvious spec gap is memory: 48 GB versus 8 GB. The bus width difference (384-bit vs 128-bit) and bandwidth (864.0 GB/s vs 288.0 GB/s) directly follow. Compute throughput is another major divider: the W7900’s 61.32 TFLOPS FP32 is 3.07x the W7600’s 19.99 TFLOPS. Pixel rate is 479.0 GPixel/s versus 156.2 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 958.1 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s.

Process node and die size differ: 5 nm vs 6 nm, 529 mm² vs 204 mm², and transistor count 57,700M vs 13,300M. Clocks are close: base 1760 MHz vs 1720 MHz, boost 2495 MHz vs 2440 MHz—a 2.2% and 2.3% difference respectively, favoring the W7900.

Power and physical specs are starkly different. TDP is 295 W vs 130 W. The W7900 needs 2x 8-pin and a 600 W PSU; the W7600 needs 1x 6-pin and a 300 W PSU. Slot width is triple-slot versus single-slot. Dimensions: 280 mm length, 110 mm height, 51 mm width for the W7900; 241 mm length, 115 mm height for the W7600 (width not listed). The W7900 has a 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1, while the W7600 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a narrow victory for the W7900, scoring 84379 against the W7600’s 81528. That is a delta of just 3.5%—surprisingly small given the 3x difference in compute units. This suggests the OpenCL workload is not fully scaling with shader count, possibly due to memory bandwidth or driver overhead. The W7600’s 8 GB VRAM is not a bottleneck here, but the results indicate that for OpenCL compute, the W7600 punches well above its weight class.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a completely different story. The W7900 scores 137070, while the W7600 falls to 92688. The delta is 47.9%, a massive gap that dwarfs the OpenCL difference. Vulkan workloads are more sensitive to geometry throughput, ROP count, and memory bandwidth—all areas where the W7900 has a 3x hardware advantage. The 192 ROPs versus 64 ROPs, and 864 GB/s versus 288 GB/s, clearly dominate in this scenario.

Across both tests, the average benchmark scores reflect this split. The W7900 averages 110725, while the W7600 averages 87108—a 27.1% overall difference. The W7900’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (deltaPct 1%), NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (deltaPct -2.8%), and AMD Radeon Pro W6600X (deltaPct 3.2%). The W7600’s rivals are much closer: NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (deltaPct -0.4%), NVIDIA CMP 40HX (deltaPct 1.7%), and NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (deltaPct -4.4%).

The Verdict

Choose the W7900 if your workloads are graphics-intensive. The 47.9% Vulkan lead over the W7600 is decisive for viewport rendering, real-time visualization, or any task that hits the rasterization pipeline. The 48 GB VRAM is non-negotiable for large scenes, 3D texture arrays, or datasets that exceed 8 GB. The triple-slot footprint and 295 W TDP are the price you pay for that capability, but the 94th percentile ranking confirms it sits near the top of the GPU hierarchy.

Choose the W7600 if your work is primarily OpenCL compute. The 3.5% gap in that test means you lose almost nothing in raw compute throughput, while saving dramatically on power (130 W vs 295 W), space (single-slot vs triple-slot), and PSU requirements (300 W vs 600 W). The single 6-pin connector and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface are simpler to integrate into existing systems. Its 93rd percentile is only one point below the W7900, making it a surprisingly strong performer for its class.

The data does not support the W7600 for Vulkan-heavy tasks—the 47.9% deficit is too large to ignore. Similarly, the W7900’s OpenCL advantage is too marginal to justify its size and power draw if that is your only use case. Match the card to your dominant workload: W7900 for graphics, W7600 for compute. Both are active products with no successor listed, so the choice is between top-tier capability and efficient adequacy.