AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs AMD Radeon RX 9050 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 and the AMD Radeon RX 9050. The recorded data for the PRO W7600 includes two Geekbench scores: 81,528 in OpenCL and 92,688 in Vulkan, producing an average benchmark score of 87,108. The RX 9050 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, with an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile ranking of 50 versus the PRO W7600's 93rd percentile. This absence of directly comparable measurements means any performance comparison must rely on the architectural and specification data available for each card.

The PRO W7600's average score of 87,108 places it within a narrow competitive band in the database. The nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, scores 87,445, which is 0.4% higher. The NVIDIA CMP 40HX sits 1.7% lower at 85,637. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile and RTX A4500 score 91,134 and 91,671 respectively, putting them 4.4% and 5.0% ahead of the PRO W7600. These deltas show the PRO W7600 holding its own against professional-class GPUs, trailing the faster mobile and desktop RTX A4500 variants by a modest margin while edging out the Quadro GP100 and CMP 40HX.

For the RX 9050, the lack of benchmark entries means the database cannot confirm any performance wins. Its 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs is based on the absence of recorded scores, not on measured performance. The PRO W7600's 93rd percentile, by contrast, reflects its two recorded benchmark results. Any claims about the RX 9050's speed relative to the PRO W7600 would be speculative, so the analysis below focuses on the measurable differences in architecture and specifications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has an average benchmark score of 87,108, while the AMD Radeon RX 9050 has no recorded scores and an average of 0.

Q: How does the PRO W7600 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The PRO W7600 trails the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile by 4.4% and the RTX A4500 by 5.0%, while leading the NVIDIA CMP 40HX by 1.7% and essentially matching the Quadro GP100, which is only 0.4% faster.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each GPU?

A: The PRO W7600 uses 13,300 million transistors, while the RX 9050 uses 29,700 million transistors.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The RX 9050 uses a 4 nm process, while the PRO W7600 uses a 6 nm process, both from TSMC.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the release date for each card?

A: The PRO W7600 was released on 2023-08-02, and the RX 9050 is dated 2026-07-27.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs belong to different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 uses RDNA 3.0 architecture on the Navi 33 chip, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish, and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation. The AMD Radeon RX 9050 uses RDNA 4.0 architecture on the Navi 44 chip, with no codename listed, and belongs to the Navi IV generation within the RX 9000 series.

The manufacturing processes differ significantly. The PRO W7600 is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 9050 uses a 4 nm process at the same foundry. This process shrink contributes to a substantial difference in transistor density. The PRO W7600 packs 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die, yielding a density of 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 9050 crams 29,700 million transistors into a slightly smaller 199 mm² die, achieving 149.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 9050 therefore has more than double the transistor count and more than double the density, despite the smaller physical die.

The compute unit configurations diverge sharply. The PRO W7600 has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation units, and 32 ray tracing cores. The RX 9050 has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation units, and 16 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7600 thus has twice the shading units, twice the TMUs, and twice the RT cores, while both share an identical 64 ROP count.

The FP32 and FP16 throughput figures reflect this difference. The PRO W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 39.98 TFLOPS of FP16 performance with a 2:1 ratio. The RX 9050 delivers 10.65 TFLOPS of FP32 and 10.65 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The PRO W7600's FP32 output is nearly double that of the RX 9050, and its FP16 output is nearly four times higher.

The bus interface also differs. The PRO W7600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX 9050 uses PCIe 5.0 x16. The RX 9050's interface offers more lanes and a newer generation, which could matter for data transfer in bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The display outputs differ as well: the PRO W7600 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1, while the RX 9050 provides 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds show opposing strategies. The PRO W7600 has a base clock of 1720 MHz and a boost clock of 2440 MHz. The RX 9050 has a lower base clock of 1330 MHz but a higher boost clock of 2600 MHz, with a game clock of 1920 MHz. The memory clock is identical for both: 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate.

The memory subsystems are identical in capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth. Both cards use 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This means memory-bound workloads will not differentiate the two cards based on memory capacity or throughput.

Power consumption differs notably. The PRO W7600 has a TDP of 130 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the RX 9050 has a TDP of 92 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RX 9050 draws 38 W less under load and requires a smaller power supply. The power connectors differ accordingly: the PRO W7600 uses a single 6-pin connector, while the RX 9050 uses a single 8-pin connector.

The physical designs differ. The PRO W7600 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length and 115 mm in height. The RX 9050 is a dual-slot card, with no dimensions listed in the database. The PRO W7600's single-slot profile makes it suitable for dense multi-GPU configurations, while the RX 9050's dual-slot design suggests a more conventional cooling solution.

The production status for both cards is Active. The PRO W7600 lists its predecessor as the Radeon Pro Vega and has a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The RX 9050 lists its predecessor as Navi III and has no launch MSRP recorded. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 wins on raw compute throughput. Its 19.99 TFLOPS FP32 performance is 87.7% higher than the RX 9050's 10.65 TFLOPS. Its FP16 output of 39.98 TFLOPS is 275.5% higher than the RX 9050's 10.65 TFLOPS. The PRO W7600 also has twice the shading units, twice the TMUs, and twice the ray tracing cores, which gives it a structural advantage in parallel workloads. The pixel rates are close, with the PRO W7600 at 156.2 GPixel/s and the RX 9050 at 166.4 GPixel/s, meaning the RX 9050 actually has a 6.5% higher pixel fill rate despite its lower compute counts. The texture rates diverge heavily: the PRO W7600 achieves 312.3 GTexel/s versus the RX 9050's 166.4 GTexel/s, a difference of 87.7%.

The RX 9050 wins on efficiency and connectivity. Its 92 W TDP is 29.2% lower than the PRO W7600's 130 W, and its suggested PSU of 250 W is 50 W lower. The RX 9050 uses a 4 nm process versus the 6 nm process of the PRO W7600, which contributes to its lower power draw. The RX 9050 also has a more modern PCIe 5.0 x16 interface versus the PRO W7600's PCIe 4.0 x8, which doubles the lane count and upgrades the generation. The RX 9050's boost clock of 2600 MHz is 6.6% higher than the PRO W7600's 2440 MHz, indicating a higher peak frequency capability.

The PRO W7600 has a clear advantage in display output for multi-monitor setups, offering 4x DisplayPort 2.1 versus the RX 9050's combination of 1x HDMI 2.1b and 2x DisplayPort 2.1a. The RX 9050's inclusion of an HDMI port may be preferable for consumer displays, while the PRO W7600's four DisplayPort outputs target professional multi-display environments.

The PRO W7600 has recorded benchmarks and a 93rd percentile ranking, while the RX 9050 has no recorded benchmarks and a 50th percentile ranking. In the database, the PRO W7600 is a measured performer, while the RX 9050 is an unmeasured entry. The RX 9050's release date of 2026-07-27 is nearly three years after the PRO W7600's 2023-08-02 release, making it a newer product generation.

The Verdict

The data in the database points to the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 as the stronger compute performer. Its recorded average benchmark score of 87,108 and 93rd percentile ranking stand against the RX 9050's absence of measured scores and 50th percentile placeholder. The PRO W7600 delivers roughly double the FP32 throughput, nearly four times the FP16 throughput, and double the shading units, TMUs, and ray tracing cores. For workloads that rely on raw shader and ray tracing throughput, the PRO W7600 is the clear choice based on the recorded specifications.

The AMD Radeon RX 9050 claims the efficiency crown. Its 92 W TDP versus 130 W for the PRO W7600 means it draws less power and requires a smaller PSU. Its 4 nm process node is a generation ahead of the 6 nm node used by the PRO W7600, and its transistor density of 149.2M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm² demonstrates a much more compact design. The RX 9050 also offers a PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, which is newer and wider than the PRO W7600's PCIe 4.0 x8. The RX 9050's higher pixel rate of 166.4 GPixel/s versus 156.2 GPixel/s gives it a slight edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The choice between these two GPUs depends on the workload priority. For compute-intensive professional tasks such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference that benefit from higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, the PRO W7600's 19.99 TFLOPS and 39.98 TFLOPS respectively make it the superior option. Its single-slot form factor and four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs also suit multi-GPU and multi-display professional environments. The RX 9050, with its lower power draw, newer process node, and PCIe 5.0 x16 interface, is positioned for systems where power efficiency and modern connectivity matter more than raw compute density. The database records no benchmark results for the RX 9050, so its actual performance remains unverified, whereas the PRO W7600 has demonstrated competitive scores against the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, CMP 40HX, RTX A4500 Mobile, and RTX A4500. Users requiring proven performance from measured data should favor the PRO W7600; those prioritizing efficiency and newer interface standards may prefer the RX 9050, with the caveat that its performance is not yet documented in the database.