AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs NVIDIA L4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA L4 dominates the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 in every recorded test. In the Geekbench OpenCL workload, the L4 scores 140,838 against the W7600's 81,528, a 72.7% advantage. That is not a marginal lead; it is a near-doubling of compute throughput in a general-purpose GPU compute scenario. The Vulkan result tells a similar story, though with a smaller gap: the L4 reaches 121,306 while the W7600 manages 92,688, putting the NVIDIA part 30.9% ahead.

Looking at the broader database context, the L4's average benchmark score of 131,072 places it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7600's 87,108 average sits in the 93rd percentile. The percentile gap appears modest, but the raw score difference is substantial. The L4's nearest rivals, the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti (average 131,938, delta -0.7%), the RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218, delta -3.1%), and the A10M (135,230, delta -3.1%), all sit within a few percentage points of its average. The W7600, by contrast, trades blows with the Quadro GP100 (87,445, delta -0.4%), the CMP 40HX (85,637, delta +1.7%), and the RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134, delta -4.4%). These are different performance tiers entirely.

The OpenCL delta of 72.7% is the headline figure. It reflects not just the L4's higher raw FP32 throughput (30.29 TFLOPS versus 19.99 TFLOPS), but also its larger memory subsystem and wider execution resources. The Vulkan delta of 30.9% is closer, suggesting that the W7600's RDNA 3.0 architecture scales better in graphics-oriented workloads relative to its compute capability, but it still loses decisively. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature parity does not rescue the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The underlying silicon tells the story of two very different design philosophies. The NVIDIA L4 uses the AD104 chip built on TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die for a transistor density of 121.8 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip (codenamed Hotpink Bonefish) on TSMC's 6 nm node, with 13,300 million transistors across 204 mm², yielding a density of 65.2 million per square millimeter. The L4 has nearly 2.7 times the transistor count and 1.44 times the die area, which explains its substantial compute advantage despite the W7600's higher clock speeds.

Clock frequencies are a key differentiator. The L4 runs a conservative base clock of 795 MHz and boosts to 2040 MHz, while the W7600 starts at 1720 MHz and boosts to 2440 MHz. The AMD part's clocks are higher by 116% at base and 19.6% at boost, a typical RDNA 3.0 trait of pushing frequency hard. Yet the L4's wider architecture more than compensates: 7,424 shading units versus 2,048, 240 texture mapping units versus 128, and 80 ROPs versus 64. The ray tracing hardware also favors NVIDIA, with 60 RT cores against AMD's 32, and the L4 adds 240 tensor cores where the W7600 has none listed.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The L4 carries 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 300.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 288.0 GB/s. The L4's bandwidth advantage is modest (4.2%), but its 200% larger capacity is crucial for large datasets. Memory clocks tell a similar tale: the L4 runs at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective), while the W7600 runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), with the AMD part's faster memory partially offsetting its narrower bus.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The L4 is rated at 72 W TDP with no power connectors, drawing entirely from the PCIe slot, and measures 169 mm in length (6.7 inches) with a 56 mm height (2.2 inches). The W7600 draws 130 W, requires a single 6-pin connector, and is substantially larger at 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 115 mm (4.5 inches) high. Both are single-slot cards, but the L4's lower power draw and compact footprint make it far easier to integrate into dense server environments. The L4 has no display outputs, while the W7600 offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1, reflecting their intended roles as compute versus workstation cards.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA L4 averages 131,072 across recorded tests, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 averages 87,108. The L4 sits in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, the W7600 in the 93rd.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the L4 scores 140,838 versus 81,528 for the W7600, a 72.7% lead. In Geekbench Vulkan, the L4 scores 121,306 versus 92,688, a 30.9% lead. The L4 wins both recorded tests.

Q: What are the memory capacities and bandwidths?

A: The L4 has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 300.1 GB/s bandwidth. The W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The L4 offers triple the capacity and slightly higher bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. There is no API-level feature difference between them in the database.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The L4 has a 72 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested 250 W PSU. The W7600 has a 130 W TDP and needs one 6-pin connector, with a suggested 300 W PSU.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: The L4 has no display outputs, making it a compute-only card. The W7600 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, enabling direct display connectivity.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA L4 | AMD Radeon PRO W7600 |

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

| Chip | AD104 | Navi 33 |

| Architecture | Ada Lovelace | RDNA 3.0 |

| Codename | None listed | Hotpink Bonefish |

| Generation | Server Ada (Lxx) | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 35,800 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 121.8M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 795 MHz | 1720 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2040 MHz | 2440 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective) | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 300.1 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 7424 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 240 | 128 |

| ROPs | 80 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 60 | 32 |

| Tensor Cores | 240 | None listed |

| Pixel Rate | 163.2 GPixel/s | 156.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 489.6 GTexel/s | 312.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 30.29 TFLOPS | 19.99 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 30.29 TFLOPS (1:1) | 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 72 W | 130 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

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

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Length | 169 mm (6.7 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | 56 mm (2.2 inches) | 115 mm (4.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2023-03-20 | 2023-08-02 |

| Predecessor | Server Ampere | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Successor | Server Hopper | None listed |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 599 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA L4 wins in every recorded benchmark, and its advantages are concentrated in areas that matter for compute-heavy server workloads. Its 24 GB memory capacity is triple the W7600's 8 GB, which is decisive for large model inference, big datasets, or multi-tenant GPU virtualization. The L4's FP32 throughput of 30.29 TFLOPS is 51.5% higher than the W7600's 19.99 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate (163.2 GPixel/s) and texture rate (489.6 GTexel/s) both exceed the AMD card's figures (156.2 GPixel/s and 312.3 GTexel/s). The L4 also has a massive shading unit count advantage (7,424 versus 2,048), plus dedicated tensor cores for AI acceleration, which the W7600 lacks entirely.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has specific advantages that are not captured in the head-to-head scores. Its FP16 throughput of 39.98 TFLOPS exceeds the L4's 30.29 TFLOPS, a 32% advantage for workloads that can use half-precision math. The W7600 also has higher clock speeds (2440 MHz boost versus 2040 MHz), faster memory clock (18 Gbps effective versus 12.5 Gbps), and a more energy-efficient transistor density per watt when considering its smaller die. Its 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs make it usable as a workstation card with direct display connectivity, which the L4 cannot offer. The W7600's PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is narrower than the L4's x16, but for many workstation tasks that is sufficient.

For pure compute, the L4 is the clear choice based on the data. Its higher FP32, larger memory, and tensor core support align with AI inference, scientific computing, and server-side rendering. The W7600's strengths lie in FP16 throughput, higher clocks, and display outputs, making it more suited to graphics workstations where half-precision compute and direct display output are priorities. The W7600 also has a lower transistor count and smaller die, which may imply lower manufacturing complexity, but the database records no cost data beyond the W7600's launch MSRP of 599 USD.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for users prioritizing raw compute performance: the NVIDIA L4 is the superior card. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, with a 72.7% margin in OpenCL and a 30.9% margin in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 131,072 places it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7600's 87,108 average sits in the 93rd percentile. The L4's nearest rivals, such as the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti (delta -0.7%) and the RTX 4000 Ada Generation (delta -3.1%), are all within a narrow band, confirming the L4's position at the top of its class. The W7600, by contrast, competes with the Quadro GP100 (delta -0.4%) and the RTX A4500 (delta -5%), a lower performance tier.

For server deployments, AI inference, or any workload that demands large memory capacity and high FP32 throughput, the L4 is the only sensible pick from these two. Its 72 W TDP, no power connectors, and compact 169 mm length make it exceptionally easy to install in dense servers. The W7600's 130 W TDP and 241 mm length require more power and space, and its 8 GB memory is a hard limit for many modern workloads.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 finds its niche in workstation environments where display outputs are required and FP16 compute is more important than FP32. Its 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs allow direct monitor connection, and its 39.98 TFLOPS FP16 throughput exceeds the L4's 30.29 TFLOPS. For users who need half-precision compute and a physical display interface, the W7600 has a clear role. But for every recorded benchmark, the L4 wins, and the magnitudes of those wins are decisive.

Choose the NVIDIA L4 for compute density, memory capacity, and raw performance. Choose the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 for workstation graphics with display outputs and FP16-heavy workloads. The benchmark record offers no third option.