AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs NVIDIA L20 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive comparison. The NVIDIA L20 dominates the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 in every recorded test, with margins that are not merely incremental but transformative. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the L20 scores 274,276 against the W7600's 81,528, a delta of 236.4%. This is not a close contest; it is a category difference. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the L20 records 228,018 while the W7600 manages 92,688, a delta of 146%. The L20 wins both head-to-head benchmarks, giving it a clean 2-0 record.

The OpenCL result is particularly telling. A 236.4% advantage indicates that the L20 processes general-purpose compute workloads at roughly 3.4 times the speed of the W7600. This magnitude of difference suggests that the L20 is not just faster, but operates in a different performance tier altogether. The Vulkan result, while less extreme, still shows the L20 at 2.5 times the W7600's performance. Both tests point to the same conclusion: the L20 is the superior compute device across the board.

When placed in the broader context of the database, the L20's average benchmark score of 251,147 places it in the 99th percentile of all GPUs. The W7600, with an average score of 87,108, sits in the 93rd percentile. While both are high-performing cards, the percentile gap is substantial. The L20's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA L40 (average score 284,111, 11.6% higher) and the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (average score 287,237, 12.6% higher), indicating that the L20 is positioned just below the top-tier workstation cards. Conversely, the W7600's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (average score 87,445, 0.4% lower) and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (average score 91,671, 5% higher), placing it in a mid-range workstation segment.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no overlap in strengths. The NVIDIA L20 wins in both compute and graphics API workloads, making it the unequivocal choice for tasks that demand raw throughput. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 274,276 reflects exceptional performance in general-purpose GPU computing, which includes scientific simulation, machine learning inference, and data processing. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 228,018 indicates strong graphics rendering capability, suitable for real-time visualization and high-fidelity graphics workloads.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600, despite losing both benchmarks, still demonstrates credible performance within its class. Its OpenCL score of 81,528 and Vulkan score of 92,688 are respectable for a card with a 93rd percentile ranking. However, the database shows no recorded test where the W7600 outperforms the L20. For users considering the W7600, the use cases would be limited to scenarios where the L20's additional power is unnecessary, such as lighter graphics workloads or compute tasks that do not scale with massive parallel throughput. But from a pure performance standpoint, the L20 wins every measurable category.

The wins break down as follows: the L20 takes 2 wins in head-to-head benchmarks, while the W7600 takes 0. This asymmetry is reflected in the average benchmark scores: 251,147 for the L20 versus 87,108 for the W7600, a difference of 188.4%. The L20's advantage is not confined to a single API or workload type; it is consistent across both OpenCL and Vulkan, suggesting that the architectural advantages translate broadly across different software stacks.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures explain much of the performance gap. The NVIDIA L20 is built on the AD102 chip, using the Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 125.3 million per mm². The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip, based on RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. This chip contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². The L20 has nearly 5.7 times more transistors and a 2.9 times larger die, which provides a massive resource advantage.

Memory configuration further separates the two. The L20 offers 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7600 provides 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The L20 has 6 times the memory capacity and 3 times the bandwidth. This is critical for large datasets, high-resolution textures, and compute workloads that require substantial memory residency. The L20's memory clock is 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), identical to the W7600's memory clock, but the wider bus makes the difference.

Compute resources are drastically different. The L20 features 11,776 shading units, 368 texture mapping units, 128 render output units, 92 ray tracing cores, and 368 tensor cores. The W7600 has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores listed. The L20 has 5.8 times more shading units, 2.9 times more TMUs, 2 times more ROPs, and 2.9 times more ray tracing cores. The presence of tensor cores in the L20, absent in the W7600, is significant for AI and machine learning workloads that rely on tensor operations. The L20's FP32 throughput is 59.35 TFLOPS, while the W7600 achieves 19.99 TFLOPS. In FP16, the L20 delivers 59.35 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the W7600 reaches 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio). Even in FP16, where the W7600's ratio is more efficient, the L20 still leads by 48.4%.

The power and physical characteristics differ as well. The L20 has a TDP of 275 W, requires a single 16-pin power connector, and a suggested 600 W power supply. It is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The W7600 has a TDP of 130 W, uses a single 6-pin connector, and a suggested 300 W power supply. It is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length and 115 mm in height. The W7600 is more power-efficient per watt, but the L20's absolute performance is far higher. The L20's bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16, while the W7600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, halving the available bandwidth for data transfer. Both support PCIe 4.0, but the L20's wider interface reduces potential bottlenecks.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA L20 than the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 in OpenCL?

A: The L20 scores 274,276 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the W7600 scores 81,528. This represents a 236.4% advantage for the L20.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The L20 has an average benchmark score of 251,147, placing it in the 99th percentile. The W7600 has an average score of 87,108, placing it in the 93rd percentile.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The L20 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 384-bit bus. The W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 have tensor cores?

A: No, the W7600 has no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA L20 has 368 tensor cores, which are specialized for AI and machine learning workloads.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The L20 has a TDP of 275 W with a suggested 600 W power supply and a single 16-pin connector. The W7600 has a TDP of 130 W with a suggested 300 W power supply and a single 6-pin connector.

Q: How do the cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The L20 scores 228,018 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the W7600 scores 92,688. The L20 leads by 146%.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA L20 is the superior choice for any workload where compute performance, memory capacity, or bandwidth is a priority. Its 236.4% lead in OpenCL and 146% lead in Vulkan over the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 are decisive. The L20's 48 GB memory and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for large-scale datasets, while its 368 tensor cores enable accelerated AI workflows that the W7600 cannot match. The L20's 99th percentile ranking versus the W7600's 93rd percentile confirms its higher standing in the overall GPU landscape.

However, the W7600 is not without merit. Its 130 W TDP and single-slot design make it a low-power, space-efficient option. It is smaller at 241 mm in length, and its 8 GB memory may suffice for lighter tasks. The W7600 also features DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the L20 uses DisplayPort 1.4a, which could matter for specific display configurations. But for users who need raw performance, the L20 is the clear winner. The W7600 should be considered only when power constraints, physical space, or the lack of need for high-end compute make the L20's capabilities excessive.

The L20's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA L40 and RTX 6000 Ada Generation, both of which are 11.6% and 12.6% faster, respectively. This indicates that the L20 is positioned just below the top-tier professional cards. The W7600's nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA RTX A4500 and RTX A4500 Mobile, are 5% and 4.4% faster, suggesting that the W7600 sits in a competitive mid-range segment. For buyers, the choice depends on whether the workload justifies the L20's substantial performance advantage, which the benchmark data strongly supports.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA L20 | AMD Radeon PRO W7600 |

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

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 76,300 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 609 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 125.3M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1440 MHz | 1720 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2520 MHz | 2440 MHz |

| Memory Size | 48 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 864.0 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 11776 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 368 | 128 |

| ROPs | 128 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 92 | 32 |

| Tensor Cores | 368 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 322.6 GPixel/s | 156.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 927.4 GTexel/s | 312.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 59.35 TFLOPS | 19.99 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 59.35 TFLOPS (1:1) | 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 275 W | 130 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 300 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 115 mm (4.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2023-11-15 | 2023-08-02 |

| Launch MSRP | null | 599 USD |