AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation records an average benchmark score of 184,664, placing it in the 98th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 averages 87,108, which sits in the 93rd percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA card scores 175,286 versus 81,528 for the AMD card, a delta of 115% in favor of the RTX 5000 Ada Generation.

Q: Are both cards using the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 uses a 6 nm process, also from TSMC.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity?

A: The NVIDIA card comes with 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the AMD card has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU supports newer display outputs?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 offers four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, whereas the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation provides four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The NVIDIA AD102 chip contains 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die. The AMD Navi 33 chip has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two workstation GPUs is substantial, starting with the fundamental chip design. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation is built on the AD102 chip using the Ada Lovelace architecture, a 5 nm design from TSMC. This is a massive chip with 76,300 million transistors packed into a 609 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 125.3 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip with the RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed "Hotpink Bonefish." It is fabricated on a 6 nm process and contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, resulting in a density of 65.2 million per square millimeter.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The NVIDIA card features 12,800 shading units, 400 texture mapping units, and 176 render output units. It also includes 100 RT cores for ray tracing and 400 tensor cores for AI acceleration. The AMD card has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, along with 32 RT cores. Notably, the AMD card has no tensor core count listed in the database, highlighting a key functional gap for compute workloads that rely on tensor operations.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation uses a 256-bit memory bus with 32 GB of GDDR6, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7600 uses a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6, providing 288.0 GB/s. Both cards run their memory at an effective 18 Gbps, but the wider bus on the NVIDIA card doubles the bandwidth.

The physical design also reflects the performance tier. The NVIDIA card is dual-slot with a 1x 16-pin power connector and a suggested 600 W power supply. The AMD card is single-slot with a 1x 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA card measures 267 mm in length and 112 mm in height, while the AMD card is 241 mm long and 115 mm tall. Power consumption figures show the NVIDIA card rated at 250 W versus 130 W for the AMD part.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation wins in both recorded tests, taking 2 wins to 0 for the AMD Radeon PRO W7600. However, the use-case split goes beyond raw scores. The NVIDIA card is positioned for workloads that demand massive memory capacity and bandwidth. With 32 GB of VRAM and 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, it is suited for large datasets, complex 3D scenes, and GPU-accelerated compute tasks that exceed the memory ceiling of smaller cards.

The AMD card, while slower in absolute terms, occupies a different niche. Its single-slot design and 130 W power draw make it a candidate for dense multi-GPU configurations or systems with limited physical space and power delivery. The 8 GB memory capacity is modest, but the card supports DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, which may be relevant for installations using newer high-bandwidth displays. The RDNA 3.0 architecture also offers FP16 performance at a 2:1 ratio, delivering 39.98 TFLOPS compared to its FP32 rate of 19.99 TFLOPS. This could benefit workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic.

The NVIDIA card's tensor cores and higher FP32 throughput (65.28 TFLOPS) give it an edge in AI inference, deep learning training, and simulation workloads. The AMD card has no tensor core count, so it lacks a dedicated path for tensor-based acceleration. The RT core counts also differ, 100 versus 32, which impacts ray tracing performance in rendering applications.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge across nearly every specification category. The process node differs: 5 nm for NVIDIA versus 6 nm for AMD. Transistor count is 76,300 million versus 13,300 million, a 5.7x difference. Die size is 609 mm² versus 204 mm². Transistor density is 125.3 million per mm² versus 65.2 million per mm².

Clock speeds show a different pattern. The AMD card has a higher base clock at 1720 MHz versus 1155 MHz for the NVIDIA card. Boost clocks are closer: 2440 MHz for AMD versus 2550 MHz for NVIDIA. Memory clock is identical at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective data rate.

Memory capacity is 32 GB versus 8 GB. Bus width is 256-bit versus 128-bit. Bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s. Shading units number 12,800 versus 2,048. TMUs are 400 versus 128. ROPs are 176 versus 64. RT cores are 100 versus 32. Tensor cores are 400 on the NVIDIA card, with no equivalent listed on the AMD card.

Pixel rate is 448.8 GPixel/s versus 156.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 1,020.0 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 65.28 TFLOPS versus 19.99 TFLOPS. FP16 throughput is 65.28 TFLOPS (1:1) on NVIDIA versus 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1) on AMD.

Power specifications differ: TDP is 250 W versus 130 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus single-slot. Power connector is 1x 16-pin versus 1x 6-pin. Suggested PSU is 600 W versus 300 W. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1. Dimensions are 267 mm by 112 mm versus 241 mm by 115 mm.

Release dates are close, with the NVIDIA card launching on 2023-08-08 and the AMD card on 2023-08-02. The NVIDIA card has a predecessor in Workstation Ampere and a successor in Blackwell PRO W. The AMD card's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, with no successor listed. The AMD card has a launch MSRP of 599 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the largest absolute gap. The NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Generation scores 175,286, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 scores 81,528. This represents a delta of 115%, meaning the NVIDIA card is more than twice as fast in this compute-oriented benchmark. The result aligns with the hardware disparity: the NVIDIA card has 6.25 times the shading units, 3.13 times the TMUs, 2.75 times the ROPs, and double the memory bandwidth.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a slightly smaller relative gap. The NVIDIA card scores 194,041 versus 92,688 for the AMD card, a delta of 109.3%. Notably, the NVIDIA card scores higher in Vulkan than in OpenCL, suggesting strong driver optimization for the Vulkan API. The AMD card also improves in Vulkan relative to its OpenCL score, but the percentage gap remains above 100%.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The NVIDIA card averages 184,664, which is 2.12 times the AMD card's average of 87,108. The percentile rankings also differ: the NVIDIA card sits at the 98th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD card is at the 93rd percentile.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the RTX 5000 Ada Generation sits close to the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB, which averages 183,725 and trails by just 0.5%. It also edges out the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell by 1.4% and the GeForce RTX 4090 D by 3.7%. The AMD W7600 compares to the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, which averages 87,445 and is 0.4% behind, and the NVIDIA CMP 40HX, which trails by 1.7%. The RTX A4500 Mobile and RTX A4500 are ahead by 4.4% and 5% respectively.

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The RTX 5000 Ada Generation delivers roughly double the compute performance of the W7600 in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The win count of 2 to 0 reflects a complete sweep in the recorded benchmarks, with no test where the AMD card takes the lead. For users prioritizing raw throughput, memory capacity, or tensor-based acceleration, the NVIDIA card holds a decisive advantage. For those prioritizing power efficiency, physical footprint, or DisplayPort 2.1 support, the AMD card offers a different trade-off set.