AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs NVIDIA A10M Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA A10M and AMD Radeon PRO W7600 serve entirely different segments of the professional GPU market, and the recorded benchmark data reflects that separation clearly. The A10M is a server-class accelerator with no display outputs, designed for compute-heavy workloads in data center environments. The W7600 is an active workstation card with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, aimed at professional visualization and content creation.

From the data, the A10M is the clear compute winner. In the single recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the A10M scores 135,230 against the W7600's 81,528, a 65.9% advantage. This is not a marginal difference; it is a dominant performance gap in raw compute throughput. The A10M also sits at the 96th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the W7600 sits at the 93rd percentile. However, the W7600 counters with a much higher clock speed, a newer process node, and a lower thermal design power.

The target user is the deciding factor. If the workload is headless compute, AI inference, or rendering in a server chassis, the A10M is the only choice from this pair, as it has no display outputs and is built for that exact role. If the workload requires a physical workstation with monitor outputs, the W7600 is the only functional option here, as the A10M cannot drive a display. The W7600 also provides Vulkan performance data (92,688 in Geekbench Vulkan), which the A10M lacks entirely in the database, suggesting the AMD card has broader API coverage in recorded tests.

The data does not support a single "best" card. It supports two different tools for two different jobs. The A10M is a compute accelerator with a massive memory pool; the W7600 is a compact workstation GPU with modern display connectivity and a much lower power draw.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in the database?

A: The NVIDIA A10M. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 135,230, which is 65.9% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7600's 81,528 in the same test.

Q: Can the NVIDIA A10M connect to a monitor?

A: No. The database lists its display outputs as "No outputs." The AMD Radeon PRO W7600, by contrast, has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs.

Q: Which card has more memory, and what is the difference?

A: The NVIDIA A10M has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, yielding 500.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 288.0 GB/s.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The A10M has a TDP of 150 W and requires a 450 W suggested power supply with an 8-pin EPS connector. The W7600 has a TDP of 130 W, requires a 300 W suggested power supply, and uses a single 6-pin connector.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 boosts to 2440 MHz, compared to the NVIDIA A10M's boost of 1635 MHz. The W7600 also has a higher base clock at 1720 MHz versus 975 MHz.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The NVIDIA A10M is listed as "End-of-life," while the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is listed as "Active."

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA A10M uses the GA102 chip, built on the Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The chip contains 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 45.1 million transistors per square millimeter. This is a large, power-hungry compute die optimized for server workloads.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip, built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename "Hotpink Bonefish." It is fabricated by TSMC on a 6 nm process. The chip contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving it a much higher transistor density of 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter. This smaller, denser die is designed for efficiency and workstation-class performance in a compact form factor.

The compute feature sets diverge significantly. The A10M includes 56 ray-tracing cores and 224 tensor cores, the latter being specialized hardware for AI and deep learning workloads. The W7600 includes 32 ray-tracing cores but has no tensor cores listed in the database, reflecting a different compute strategy focused on graphics and general compute rather than AI acceleration.

The memory subsystems reflect their intended roles. The A10M's 20 GB frame buffer is nearly triple the W7600's 8 GB, and its memory clock is 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) compared to the W7600's 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). However, the A10M's 320-bit bus gives it a substantial bandwidth advantage at 500.2 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s.

The process node difference is notable: 8 nm for NVIDIA versus 6 nm for AMD. The TSMC 6 nm node allows AMD to pack more transistors per area, but the A10M's larger die and older node still deliver superior raw compute throughput in the recorded benchmark.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards in the database:

• Chip: NVIDIA GA102 versus AMD Navi 33
• Architecture: Ampere versus RDNA 3.0
• Process Node: 8 nm versus 6 nm
• Foundry: Samsung versus TSMC
• Transistors: 28,300 million versus 13,300 million
• Die Size: 628 mm² versus 204 mm²
• Transistor Density: 45.1M / mm² versus 65.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: 975 MHz versus 1720 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1635 MHz versus 2440 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) versus 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 20 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 320 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 500.2 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 7168 versus 2048
• TMUs: 224 versus 128
• ROPs: 80 versus 64
• RT Cores: 56 versus 32
• Tensor Cores: 224 versus null (not listed)
• Pixel Rate: 130.8 GPixel/s versus 156.2 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 366.2 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s
• FP32: 23.44 TFLOPS versus 19.99 TFLOPS
• FP16: 23.44 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 150 W versus 130 W
• Power Connectors: 8-pin EPS versus 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: 450 W versus 300 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display Outputs: No outputs versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1
• Dimensions: 267 mm length, 112 mm height versus 241 mm length, 115 mm height
• Production Status: End-of-life versus Active
• Release Date: null versus 2023-08-02 (the W7600 has a recorded release date, the A10M does not)
• Launch MSRP: null versus 599 USD

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards, and it is decisive.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA A10M scores 135,230 against the AMD Radeon PRO W7600's 81,528. This gives the A10M a 65.9% advantage, a massive margin that places the two cards in completely different performance tiers. The A10M's nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135,218 (a 0% delta), the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 at 135,396 (0.1% behind the A10M), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo at 135,774 (0.4% behind). This cluster of scores around 135,000 indicates that the A10M is performing at the level of high-end professional GPUs, despite being a generation old.

The W7600's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its average benchmark score is 87,108, with the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 at 87,445 (0.4% ahead of the W7600), the NVIDIA CMP 40HX at 85,637 (1.7% behind), the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile at 91,134 (4.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 at 91,671 (5% ahead). The W7600 sits in a mid-tier position, competitive with older high-end cards but clearly below the A10M's performance stratum.

The A10M also holds a percentile advantage at 96 versus the W7600's 93, meaning the A10M outperforms a larger share of the GPU database overall. However, the W7600 has a distinct advantage in FP16 compute: 39.98 TFLOPS versus the A10M's 23.44 TFLOPS. This is because the W7600 runs FP16 at a 2:1 ratio relative to FP32, while the A10M runs it at 1:1. For workloads that can leverage FP16, the W7600 is the faster card on paper, even though its FP32 output is lower at 19.99 TFLOPS versus 23.44 TFLOPS.

The pixel rate favors the W7600 at 156.2 GPixel/s versus 130.8 GPixel/s, while the texture rate favors the A10M at 366.2 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s. This mixed result reflects the different hardware allocations: the A10M has 224 TMUs to the W7600's 128, while the W7600's higher clock speed compensates in pixel throughput.

The final tally in the head-to-head is 1 win for the A10M and 0 for the W7600, but this single test only covers OpenCL. The W7600 has an additional Vulkan score of 92,688 in the database, a test the A10M does not have recorded. The data suggests that for compute-heavy, headless workloads, the A10M is the superior choice, while for graphics-intensive workstation tasks with display output requirements, the W7600 is the only option that functionally applies.