AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7800 Comparison

# AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7700

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 and AMD Radeon PRO W7700 are both RDNA 3.0 workstation cards, but they are not peers. The W7800 sits decisively above the W7700 in every benchmark recorded here, with an average benchmark score of 164,894 versus 118,976 — a 38.5% gap in aggregate performance. The W7800 lands in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7700 sits at the 95th. For users who need maximum compute throughput and the largest memory pool, the W7800 is the clear choice; for those who need solid RDNA 3.0 performance in a smaller, lower-power package, the W7700 makes a more measured case. The data does not show a single benchmark where the W7700 wins.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 if your work is dominated by OpenCL or Vulkan compute loads, or if you need 32 GB of GDDR6 memory. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 154,366 beats the W7700’s 108,245 by 42.6%, and its Vulkan score of 175,422 beats the W7700’s 129,706 by 35.2%. That is not a marginal advantage; it is a full performance tier. The W7800 also sits within 0.7% of the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (average score 166,094) and within 0.2% of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (165,217), meaning it trades blows with those professional cards rather than trailing them.

Pick the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 if you want RDNA 3.0 features — same architecture, same 5 nm process, same DisplayPort 2.1 support — but you do not need the extra 16 GB of memory or the full Navi 31 die. The W7700’s average score of 118,976 puts it 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393) and 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (117,088). It also beats the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 4% and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 4.4%. If your workloads fit within 16 GB, the W7700 offers a lower-power entry point into the same architecture family, but the data shows a substantial compute penalty versus the W7800.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC’s 5 nm process, but they are built from different silicon. The W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip (codename Plum Bonito), while the W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip (codename Wheat Nas). The transistor counts differ dramatically: Navi 31 packs 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 109.1M / mm². Navi 32 contains 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, with a density of 81.2M / mm². That means the W7800 has more than double the transistors and a physically larger, denser chip.

The compute resources scale accordingly. The W7800 features 4,480 shading units, 280 texture mapping units (TMUs), 128 render output units (ROPs), and 70 ray tracing cores. The W7700 halves many of these: 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 48 RT cores. Neither card has tensor cores, as those are not part of AMD’s RDNA 3.0 design.

Memory configurations diverge in capacity but not in bus width. Both use GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, and both run at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), yielding identical 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7800 has 32 GB, the W7700 has 16 GB. So the W7800 offers the same bandwidth per pin but twice the capacity — a critical difference for large datasets.

Clock speeds slightly favor the smaller chip. The W7700 boosts to 2600 MHz versus the W7800’s 2525 MHz, and its base clock is 1900 MHz versus 1895 MHz. However, the W7800’s larger execution resources more than compensate, as evidenced by its higher pixel rate (323.2 GPixel/s vs 249.6 GPixel/s) and texture rate (707.0 GTexel/s vs 499.2 GTexel/s). The FP32 compute figures tell the same story: 45.25 TFLOPS for the W7800, 31.95 TFLOPS for the W7700. FP16 rates double those numbers on both cards (90.50 TFLOPS and 63.90 TFLOPS, respectively, both at 2:1).

Where Each One Wins

The W7800 wins every benchmark in this comparison, but the margin varies by workload type. The largest advantage is in OpenCL, where it leads by 42.6%. That suggests compute-heavy tasks — rendering, simulation, data processing — will see the biggest uplift from stepping up to the W7800. In Vulkan, the lead narrows to 35.2%, still massive but slightly smaller, implying that graphics-oriented workloads that lean on Vulkan benefit somewhat less from the extra hardware.

The W7800’s 32 GB memory capacity gives it a clear win in memory-bound scenarios. With identical 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, the W7700 cannot outpace the W7800 on bandwidth, but it also has half the capacity. Any workload that exceeds 16 GB will spill or fail on the W7700, whereas the W7800 has headroom for large scenes, big batch sizes, or multi-application workflows. The W7800 also has higher pixel and texture throughput — 323.2 GPixel/s and 707.0 GTexel/s versus 249.6 and 499.2 — which benefits high-resolution rendering and heavy texture sampling.

The W7700’s wins are not in performance but in physical and power characteristics. It draws 190 W versus 260 W, requires only a 1x 8-pin power connector versus 2x 8-pin, and its suggested PSU is 450 W versus 600 W. It is shorter at 241 mm (9.5 inches) versus 280 mm (11 inches), and similar in height (111 mm vs 110 mm). The W7700 also offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the W7800 has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 — a minor difference in connector types, not a performance one.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 scores 154,366 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 42.6% higher than the W7700’s 108,245. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards.

Q: How do they compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The W7800 scores 175,422 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the W7700’s 129,706 by 35.2%. The W7800 wins, but by a slightly smaller margin than in OpenCL.

Q: Do they have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. Both cards use GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), providing 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The difference is capacity: the W7800 has 32 GB, the W7700 has 16 GB.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The W7800 has a TDP of 260 W with a suggested PSU of 600 W and requires 2x 8-pin power connectors. The W7700 has a TDP of 190 W, a suggested PSU of 450 W, and uses a single 8-pin connector.

Q: How does each card rank against its nearest rivals?

A: The W7800’s average score of 164,894 is 0.2% below the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (165,217) and 0.7% below the RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094), but 1.5% above the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (162,504). The W7700’s 118,976 is 1.3% above the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393) and 1.6% above the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (117,088).

Q: Are they the same physical size?

A: No. The W7800 is 280 mm (11 inches) long and 110 mm (4.3 inches) tall, while the W7700 is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. Both are dual-slot cards.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded benchmark comparisons both favor the W7800, but the margins are worth examining closely. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7800 posts 154,366 against the W7700’s 108,245, a delta of 42.6%. That is a commanding lead — nearly half again as much performance. In Geekbench Vulkan, the W7800 scores 175,422 versus 129,706, a 35.2% advantage. Both tests show the W7800 as the clear winner, and the consistency of the margins across different APIs suggests the performance gap is not workload-specific but architectural.

To put the W7800’s OpenCL score in context, it is within 0.2% of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (average score 165,217) and within 0.7% of the RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094). It also beats the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (162,504) by 1.5%. The W7700, meanwhile, leads the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393) by 1.3% and the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (117,088) by 1.6%, with slightly larger margins over the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (4%) and RTX A5500 Mobile (4.4%). What this means in practice: the W7800 is competing with high-end NVIDIA workstation cards, while the W7700 sits comfortably above mid-range and mobile offerings.

The pixel rate difference further illustrates the divide. The W7800 achieves 323.2 GPixel/s, which is 29.5% higher than the W7700’s 249.6 GPixel/s. Texture rate shows a similar gap: 707.0 GTexel/s versus 499.2 GTexel/s, a 41.6% advantage for the W7800. These numbers align closely with the OpenCL delta, suggesting that raw throughput scales almost linearly with the added compute units. The W7800’s FP32 performance of 45.25 TFLOPS is 41.6% higher than the W7700’s 31.95 TFLOPS, again mirroring the benchmark deltas.

Specification Differences

The two cards share more than they differ, but the differences are decisive. Both use RDNA 3.0, TSMC 5 nm, GDDR6 memory, a 256-bit bus, PCIe 4.0 x16, and support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The divergence begins with the silicon: Navi 31 (529 mm², 57,700 million transistors) versus Navi 32 (346 mm², 28,100 million transistors). The W7800 has 4,480 shading units, 280 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 70 RT cores; the W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 48 RT cores.

Memory capacity is 32 GB versus 16 GB, at identical 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds slightly favor the W7700 (base 1900 MHz, boost 2600 MHz) over the W7800 (1895 MHz base, 2525 MHz boost), but the W7800’s larger resource pool wins out in every measured metric. Power and physical specs differ: 260 W TDP versus 190 W, 600 W suggested PSU versus 450 W, 2x 8-pin versus 1x 8-pin connectors. The W7800 is longer (280 mm vs 241 mm) and slightly thinner (40 mm width vs unspecified for the W7700). Display outputs differ in configuration: 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 on the W7800, versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1 on the W7700. The W7800 launched in April 2023 with a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD; the W7700 launched in November 2023 with a launch MSRP of 999 USD. Both share the same predecessor (Radeon Pro Vega) and neither has a listed successor.