AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation and AMD Radeon PRO W7600 represent two distinct approaches to workstation graphics, with the former prioritizing efficiency and memory capacity and the latter focusing on raw compute throughput. Benchmark data from the database shows a clear overall winner, but the specifics reveal a more nuanced picture for different professional workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 124,812 against the AMD Radeon PRO W7600’s 81,528. That is a 53.1% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a massive margin that dominates the compute comparison. The AMD card’s OpenCL score is closer to lower-tier rivals—its nearest competitor, the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, sits at 87,445, just 0.4% behind the W7600’s average. Meanwhile, the RTX 4000 SFF’s OpenCL result aligns with much higher-end hardware; its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GB10, averages 117,393, a mere 0.3% below the RTX 4000 SFF’s own average score.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows but remains decisive. The NVIDIA card posts 109,364, while the AMD card manages 92,688, giving NVIDIA an 18% lead. This indicates that while the W7600 is more competitive in graphics-oriented APIs, it still trails by a significant margin. The Vulkan result for the RTX 4000 SFF is particularly strong when contextualized against its rivals: it beats the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944 average) by 2.8% and the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395 average) by 2.4% on average benchmark score, despite those cards having much higher power envelopes. For the W7600, its Vulkan score places it just 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 40HX (85,637) but 4.4% behind the RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134) and 5% behind the desktop RTX A4500 (91,671).

The average benchmark scores tell the same story. The RTX 4000 SFF averages 117,088 across both tests, placing it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. The W7600 averages 87,108, which is in the 93rd percentile. That 2-percentile difference might sound small, but the raw score gap is 34.4% in favor of NVIDIA. It is worth remembering the RTX 4000 SFF’s average score is 1.6% below the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (118,976), a higher-tier workstation card, whereas the W7600’s average is 0.4% above the Quadro GP100—a much older architecture. This suggests the RTX 4000 SFF punches above its class, while the W7600 is firmly mid-range.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins both head-to-head benchmarks, securing 2 wins to 0 for the AMD Radeon PRO W7600. The 53.1% OpenCL delta is the single largest differentiator, making the NVIDIA card the obvious choice for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference that rely on OpenCL. Even in Vulkan, where the AMD card is relatively stronger, NVIDIA still leads by 18%, so there is no workload category in the provided data where the W7600 comes out ahead.

For whom, then, is the W7600 suitable? Strictly from benchmark performance, it is not competitive with the RTX 4000 SFF. However, its 93rd percentile ranking means it is still a capable workstation GPU, outperforming older professional cards like the Quadro GP100 (by 0.4%) and the CMP 40HX (by 1.7%). Users upgrading from a Radeon Pro Vega generation card—the W7600’s predecessor—would see a substantial jump, but they would not be getting class-leading performance. The RTX 4000 SFF, on the other hand, sits near the top of its class, trailing only the GB10 by 0.3% and the Radeon PRO W7700 by 1.6% among its nearest rivals.

Pick the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation if your priority is maximum compute performance in a low-power, compact form factor. Its 70 W TDP and dual-slot design, combined with 20 GB of memory, make it a formidable option for dense workstations. Pick the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 if you need a single-slot card with DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, or if your software stack is optimized for AMD’s RDNA 3.0 architecture—but be prepared to accept a 34.4% average benchmark deficit. The data does not support any other conclusion.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation averages 117,088, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 averages 87,108, giving NVIDIA a 34.4% overall lead.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA card in OpenCL?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF scores 124,812 versus 81,528 for the W7600, a 53.1% advantage in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: Is the AMD card competitive in Vulkan?

A: The W7600 scores 92,688 in Vulkan, but the RTX 4000 SFF still wins with 109,364, an 18% margin. The AMD card is closer in Vulkan than OpenCL, but it is still behind.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The NVIDIA card uses 35,800 million transistors on its AD104 chip, compared to 13,300 million for the AMD Navi 33 chip.

Q: How do their percentiles compare?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF is in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7600 is in the 93rd percentile.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF uses an AD104 chip manufactured on a 5 nm process, containing 35,800 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 uses a Navi 33 chip on a 6 nm process, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. Clock speeds also diverge: the NVIDIA card has a base clock of 720 MHz and a boost clock of 1560 MHz, while the AMD card runs at 1720 MHz base and 2440 MHz boost. Memory configurations are drastically different: the RTX 4000 SFF offers 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus with 280.0 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the W7600 provides 8 GB on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

The NVIDIA card has 6144 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, along with 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The AMD card has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 32 ray tracing cores but no tensor cores. Pixel and texture rates favor AMD: the W7600 achieves 156.2 GPixel/s and 312.3 GTexel/s, while the RTX 4000 SFF manages 99.84 GPixel/s and 299.5 GTexel/s. However, FP32 compute is nearly identical, with the AMD card at 19.99 TFLOPS and the NVIDIA card at 19.17 TFLOPS. FP16 performance differs significantly: the AMD card hits 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) while the NVIDIA card is limited to 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and physical characteristics also contrast sharply. The NVIDIA card draws 70 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and fits a dual-slot layout at 168 mm length and 69 mm height. The AMD card has a 130 W TDP, needs a single 6-pin power connector, and is a single-slot design measuring 241 mm by 115 mm. The suggested power supply is 250 W for NVIDIA and 300 W for AMD. Bus interfaces differ: NVIDIA uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while AMD uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are also different, with NVIDIA offering 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a and AMD offering 4x DisplayPort 2.1. The AMD card has a launch MSRP of 599 USD.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF is built on Ada Lovelace, the same architecture used in the GeForce 40-series, and is part of the Workstation Ada generation. Its chip, AD104, is a large, dense design with a transistor density of 121.8M per mm². The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 uses RDNA 3.0, with the codename "Hotpink Bonefish," and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. Its transistor density is 65.2M per mm², roughly half of NVIDIA’s, reflecting the older 6 nm process and smaller chip.

Core organization differs as well. The NVIDIA card integrates tensor cores (192 of them) and ray tracing cores (48), making it well-suited for AI-accelerated workloads and hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The AMD card has 32 ray tracing cores but lacks tensor cores entirely, meaning any AI or deep learning tasks must rely on general-purpose shader compute. The FP16 throughput disparity—39.98 TFLOPS for AMD versus 19.17 TFLOPS for NVIDIA—stems from AMD’s 2:1 FP16:FP32 ratio, which is useful for certain compute tasks but does not translate to a benchmark win in the provided data.

Both cards support identical API levels: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, the underlying implementations are distinct. NVIDIA’s Ada Lovelace uses a 5 nm TSMC process, while AMD’s RDNA 3.0 uses a 6 nm TSMC process, despite both being fabricated by TSMC. The NVIDIA card’s 20 GB memory capacity is double-plus the AMD card’s 8 GB, which is crucial for large datasets or multi-application workflows. The AMD card compensates with slightly higher memory bandwidth (288.0 GB/s versus 280.0 GB/s) due to faster effective memory speeds of 18 Gbps versus 14 Gbps, but the narrow 128-bit bus limits its total capacity. The NVIDIA card’s 160-bit bus, combined with 14 Gbps memory, yields a lower bandwidth figure but a much larger frame buffer.

The NVIDIA card’s predecessor is Workstation Ampere, and its successor is Blackwell PRO W, indicating an active product lifecycle. The AMD card’s predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, and it has no listed successor, suggesting it may be a terminal product in its lineup. Both cards are marked as Active in production status, but the NVIDIA card launched earlier, on 2023-03-20, versus the AMD card’s 2023-08-02 release. These architectural differences—tensor cores, memory size, process node, and core counts—explain the benchmark results: the NVIDIA card’s 35,800 million transistors and 6144 shading units overwhelmingly outpace the AMD card’s 13,300 million transistors and 2048 shading units in compute-heavy OpenCL, while the AMD card’s higher clock speeds and pixel rate only partially close the gap in Vulkan.