AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs NVIDIA GB10 Comparison

NVIDIA GB10 and AMD Radeon PRO W7600 are both active workstation-oriented GPUs, but they occupy different performance and design spaces. The GB10, a server-class Blackwell part, leads in raw compute, while the W7600 offers a conventional single-slot Pro card with modern display outputs. Benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, though the W7600 holds specific advantages in platform compatibility and feature support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The NVIDIA GB10 dominates the two recorded benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GB10 scores 120,137 against the W7600’s 81,528, a 47.4% advantage. That is a substantial margin, placing the GB10 nearly half again as fast in a compute-heavy API. The Vulkan result is closer but still decisive: the GB10 scores 114,648 versus 92,688 for the W7600, a 23.7% lead. Across both tests, the GB10 wins 2–0.

The average benchmark score reinforces this gap. The GB10’s average is 117,393, while the W7600 sits at 87,108—a difference of roughly 34.8%. In percentile ranking, the GB10 lands in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7600 is in the 93rd. That 2-point percentile gap understates the raw score difference because the field is dense near the W7600’s level.

Looking at nearest rivals provides context. The GB10’s average score is just 0.3% above the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (117,088) and 1.3% below the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (118,976). It also beats the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 2.6% and the RTX A5500 Mobile by 3%. The W7600, by contrast, is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (87,445) but 1.7% ahead of the CMP 40HX (85,637). It trails the RTX A4500 Mobile by 4.4% and the RTX A4500 by 5%.

The Vulkan delta is telling. A 23.7% lead in Vulkan is significant because that API often reflects real-world rendering workloads better than OpenCL. The GB10’s advantage narrows in Vulkan versus OpenCL, suggesting the W7600’s RDNA 3 architecture handles graphics-oriented compute more efficiently relative to its raw FP32 throughput. Still, the GB10 wins outright in both, so the W7600 has no benchmark victory to point to.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The GB10 uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture on TSMC’s 5 nm process, while the W7600 uses RDNA 3.0 on TSMC’s 6 nm node. Die size differs accordingly: the GB10 measures 382 mm², the W7600 just 204 mm². Transistor counts are listed as unknown for the GB10, but the W7600 packs 13,300 million transistors at a density of 65.2M per mm².

Compute resources diverge sharply. The GB10 has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 48 ROPs. The W7600 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That means the GB10 has three times the shader count and TMUs, but the W7600 has 33% more ROPs. Ray tracing cores also differ: 48 on the GB10 versus 32 on the W7600. The GB10 adds 384 tensor cores, which the W7600 lacks entirely—a critical difference for AI workloads.

Clock speeds are comparable. The GB10 runs at 1665 MHz base and 2418 MHz boost; the W7600 at 1720 MHz base and 2440 MHz boost. The W7600 clocks slightly higher, but the GB10’s massive shader count overcomes that. Pixel rate favors the W7600 at 156.2 GPixel/s versus 116.1 GPixel/s, but texture rate heavily favors the GB10 at 928.5 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s.

FP32 throughput is a major differentiator: the GB10 delivers 29.71 TFLOPS against the W7600’s 19.99 TFLOPS. Interestingly, FP16 performance flips the script. The GB10 offers 29.71 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the W7600 delivers 39.98 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). That makes the W7600 significantly faster at half-precision compute, a notable advantage for certain scientific and machine-learning inference tasks. The GB10 compensates with its tensor cores for AI-specific work.

Memory configurations are wildly different. The GB10 has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, with bandwidth of 273.2 GB/s. The W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with slightly higher bandwidth at 288.0 GB/s. The W7600’s memory clock is 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) on the GB10. Capacity favors the GB10 enormously, but the W7600 has a 5.4% bandwidth edge.

Power and physical design differ too. The GB10 is rated at 140 W TDP, the W7600 at 130 W. Both suggest a 300 W power supply. The GB10 is an IGP (integrated graphics package) with no power connectors, measuring 150 mm by 51 mm by 150 mm. The W7600 is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin connector and dimensions of 241 mm by 115 mm. The GB10 uses PCIe 5.0 x16; the W7600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GB10 wins both recorded tests. It scores 120,137 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 81,528 for the W7600 (47.4% higher) and 114,648 in Vulkan versus 92,688 (23.7% higher).

Q: Does the AMD W7600 have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, in FP16 compute. The W7600 delivers 39.98 TFLOPS FP16 with a 2:1 ratio, while the GB10 provides 29.71 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The W7600 also has higher pixel rate (156.2 GPixel/s vs 116.1) and slightly more memory bandwidth (288.0 GB/s vs 273.2 GB/s).

Q: Why does the GB10 have such a high average score despite being an IGP?

A: The GB10 uses the Blackwell 2.0 architecture with 6,144 shading units and 384 tensor cores on a 5 nm TSMC process. Its 128 GB LPDDR5X memory and 256-bit bus provide substantial capacity, and it ranks in the 95th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What are the display output differences?

A: The GB10 has a single HDMI output. The W7600 offers four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it far more flexible for multi-monitor workstation setups.

Q: Which GPU supports modern graphics APIs?

A: Only the W7600. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GB10 lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, indicating it is not designed for traditional graphics API workloads.

Q: How do these compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The GB10 is 0.3% above the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation and 1.3% below the Radeon PRO W7700. The W7600 is 0.4% below the Quadro GP100 and 5% below the RTX A4500.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for compute-heavy workloads: the NVIDIA GB10. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by 47.4% and 23.7%, has triple the shading units, and offers 128 GB of memory versus 8 GB. Its 95th percentile ranking versus the W7600’s 93rd confirms its higher standing. If your work involves FP32-heavy tasks, large datasets, or AI acceleration via tensor cores, the GB10 is the superior card.

However, the W7600 is not without merit. Its 130 W TDP is lower than the GB10’s 140 W, it has more ROPs (64 vs 48), and its 2:1 FP16 ratio doubles the GB10’s half-precision throughput. It also supports modern graphics APIs and provides four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, whereas the GB10 offers only a single HDMI and no graphics API support. For a traditional workstation GPU with display flexibility, the W7600 is the practical choice.

The GB10’s IGP form factor and lack of power connectors suggest it is meant for server integration, not desktop use. The W7600’s single-slot design with a 6-pin connector is a standard add-in card. Neither card is a budget option by any stretch—the GB10 lists a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD, and the W7600 lists 599 USD—but the performance gap justifies the GB10’s premium only if you need its compute capabilities.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GB10 | AMD Radeon PRO W7600 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Die Size | 382 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistors | unknown | 13,300 million |

| Base Clock | 1665 MHz | 1720 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2418 MHz | 2440 MHz |

| Memory Size | 128 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | LPDDR5X | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 273.2 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 6144 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 384 | 128 |

| ROPs | 48 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 48 | 32 |

| Tensor Cores | 384 | null |

| FP32 | 29.71 TFLOPS | 19.99 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 29.71 TFLOPS (1:1) | 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 116.1 GPixel/s | 156.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 928.5 GTexel/s | 312.3 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 140 W | 130 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| DirectX | N/A | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL | N/A | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GB10 wins in raw compute, memory capacity, and AI acceleration. Its 47.4% OpenCL lead and 23.7% Vulkan lead are decisive. The 128 GB memory pool is unmatched by the W7600’s 8 GB, making the GB10 suitable for large model training or massive dataset processing. The 384 tensor cores provide hardware acceleration for deep learning that the W7600 cannot match. Texture-heavy workloads also favor the GB10, with 928.5 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 wins in half-precision compute, rasterization throughput, and display connectivity. Its 39.98 TFLOPS FP16 at 2:1 ratio is 34.6% higher than the GB10’s 29.71 TFLOPS, making it better for FP16 workloads that don’t benefit from tensor cores. The higher ROP count (64 vs 48) and pixel rate (156.2 vs 116.1 GPixel/s) give it an edge in fill-rate-limited scenarios. Four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs versus a single HDMI make the W7600 the obvious choice for multi-monitor professional setups. Its 130 W TDP is also slightly lower, and it supports full graphics API stacks (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4) where the GB10 lists none.

For power efficiency per FP32 TFLOP, the GB10 delivers 29.71 TFLOPS at 140 W (0.212 TFLOPS/W), while the W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS at 130 W (0.154 TFLOPS/W). The GB10 is more efficient in FP32. However, the W7600 achieves 39.98 FP16 TFLOPS at 130 W (0.308 TFLOPS/W), beating the GB10’s 29.71 FP16 TFLOPS at 140 W (0.212 TFLOPS/W). Efficiency leadership depends on precision.

The choice hinges on workload. Compute-heavy, AI-focused, or memory-hungry tasks demand the GB10. Graphics, multi-display, or FP16-optimized workloads favor the W7600. The data gives the GB10 the overall performance crown, but the W7600 wins on versatility and connectivity.