AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database shows a decisive generational gap between these two professional GPUs. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 108,245 points against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100's 66,605 points. That is a 62.5% advantage for the newer card. The Vulkan results are even more lopsided: the W7700 scores 129,706 while the WX 9100 manages 54,711, a 137.1% lead. Across the two shared benchmark tests, the W7700 wins both, giving it a clean 2-0 record in head-to-head comparisons.

The WX 9100 has no benchmark results in the shared tests where it comes out ahead. Its only recorded Geekbench Metal score of 71,319 is not directly comparable because the W7700 was not tested under Metal in the database. For OpenCL and Vulkan, which are cross-platform and cross-vendor APIs, the W7700 simply dominates. The magnitude of the Vulkan gap is particularly striking; the W7700 more than doubles the older card's score. This suggests architectural improvements that go beyond raw clock speed, touching how the GPU schedules work and handles modern compute workloads.

Context from the database's nearest rivals helps position these scores. The W7700's average benchmark score of 118,976 places it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs tracked. Its closest competitors are the NVIDIA GB10 at 117,393 (1.3% slower), the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation at 117,088 (1.6% slower), the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB at 114,395 (4% slower), and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile at 113,944 (4.4% slower). The W7700 is competitive with, and slightly ahead of, these modern workstation and data center parts. The WX 9100, by contrast, averages 64,212 points, sitting in the 89th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA CMP 30HX at 63,842 (0.6% faster), the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP at 63,830 (0.6% faster), the AMD Radeon RX 7600M at 63,775 (0.7% faster), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 at 63,693 (0.8% faster). Notably, the WX 9100 is slightly slower than all four of its closest rivals. The W7700 is not just faster than the WX 9100; it is faster by enough that the older card sits in a completely different performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are separated by two full GPU architecture generations. The W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename "Wheat Nas" and 5 nm process technology from TSMC. The WX 9100 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This node shrink is significant: the W7700 packs 28,100 million transistors onto a 346 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 81.2 million per square millimeter. The WX 9100 has 12,500 million transistors on a much larger 495 mm² die, yielding just 25.3 million per square millimeter. The newer chip crams more than twice the transistors into a smaller physical area, which is the foundation for its performance advantage.

The compute resource layout differs substantially. The W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, 96 render output units, and 48 ray tracing cores. The WX 9100 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, but no ray tracing cores at all. Despite having fewer shading units and TMUs, the W7700 achieves higher throughput because of its much higher clocks and architectural efficiency. The W7700's base clock is 1900 MHz with a boost of 2600 MHz, while the WX 9100 runs at 1200 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. The W7700's pixel rate is 249.6 GPixel/s versus 96.00 GPixel/s for the WX 9100. Texture rate is 499.2 GTexel/s versus 384.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute rating is 31.95 TFLOPS for the W7700, more than double the WX 9100's 12.29 TFLOPS. FP16 performance follows the same pattern: 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1).

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The W7700 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, with memory clocks of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The WX 9100 also has 16 GB, but it is HBM2 on a massive 2048-bit bus, running at 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth. The W7700's GDDR6 setup wins on raw bandwidth despite a much narrower bus, and it likely has lower latency characteristics for typical workstation workloads. The WX 9100's HBM2 was exotic for its time, but the narrower-bus GDDR6 on the newer card is simply faster in aggregate.

API support also differs. The W7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The WX 9100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The newer card also has a different display output configuration: 4x DisplayPort 2.1 versus the WX 9100's 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The W7700 uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the WX 9100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which affects data transfer speeds with the host system. Power delivery differs as well, with the W7700 requiring a single 8-pin connector and the WX 9100 needing one 6-pin plus one 8-pin.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 108,245 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 66,605 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100, a 62.5% advantage.

Q: How big is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The W7700 scores 129,706 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the WX 9100 scores 54,711. That is a 137.1% lead for the W7700.

Q: Does the WX 9100 have more shading units?

A: Yes, the WX 9100 has 4,096 shading units and 256 TMUs, compared to 3,072 shading units and 192 TMUs on the W7700. However, the W7700 still produces higher pixel and texture rates due to higher clocks and newer architecture.

Q: What are the memory differences?

A: Both have 16 GB, but the W7700 uses GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 9100 uses HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 483.8 GB/s bandwidth. The W7700 has higher bandwidth.

Q: Does either card support ray tracing?

A: Only the W7700 has dedicated ray tracing cores (48 of them). The WX 9100 has no ray tracing hardware.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The W7700 has 81.2 million transistors per mm² on a 346 mm² die. The WX 9100 has 25.3 million per mm² on a 495 mm² die. The W7700's 5 nm process from TSMC enables far denser integration than the WX 9100's 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is the superior performer in every shared benchmark test. It wins both OpenCL and Vulkan with margins of 62.5% and 137.1% respectively. Its average benchmark score of 118,976 places it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, while the WX 9100's average of 64,212 sits in the 89th percentile. The W7700 is also more efficient on paper: it delivers this performance at a TDP of 190 W, compared to 230 W for the WX 9100. The newer card requires a 450 W suggested PSU versus 550 W for the older one.

The WX 9100 is an older design from 2017, and it shows. Its production status is listed as end-of-life, and its successor is listed as the Radeon Pro Vega, which itself has been superseded. The W7700 was released in late 2023 and has no successor listed. For anyone choosing between these two cards today, the W7700 is the clear choice on pure performance grounds. The only area where the WX 9100 has a nominal advantage is in raw shading unit count and TMU count, but those do not translate into benchmark wins. The W7700's architectural efficiency and clock speed advantage more than compensate.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7700 | AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | GCN 5.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Transistors | 28,100 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | 346 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 81.2M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1900 MHz | 1200 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2600 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 483.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 192 | 256 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 249.6 GPixel/s | 96.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 499.2 GTexel/s | 384.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 31.95 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1) | 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 190 W | 230 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

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

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

| Release Date | 2023-11-12 | 2017-07-09 |

| Launch MSRP | 999 USD | 1,599 USD |

The W7700 is shorter, cooler, and more power-efficient while delivering far higher performance. It also has a lower launch MSRP of 999 USD compared to the WX 9100's 1,599 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 wins in every measurable scenario from the database. For OpenCL-based compute tasks such as rendering, simulation, or data processing, it is 62.5% faster. For Vulkan-based workloads, which increasingly appear in professional visualization and game engine tools, it is 137.1% faster. Its 48 ray tracing cores make it suitable for any workload involving hardware-accelerated ray tracing, something the WX 9100 simply cannot do. The W7700's higher pixel rate (249.6 GPixel/s) suggests it can drive more demanding display configurations, and its DisplayPort 2.1 outputs support modern high-bandwidth monitors. Its PCIe 4.0 interface also provides faster host communication than the WX 9100's PCIe 3.0.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 has no benchmark wins in the shared tests. Its higher shading unit count (4,096) and TMU count (256) do not yield any advantage in the recorded OpenCL or Vulkan scores. Its only unique capability is its 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a output configuration, which could support more physical display connections in a multi-monitor setup. However, the W7700's 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs carry more bandwidth per port and support newer display standards. The WX 9100's HBM2 memory was innovative in 2017, but the W7700's GDDR6 solution provides higher bandwidth in practice.

For a professional workstation user choosing between these two, the data points firmly to the W7700. It is faster in compute, faster in graphics, more efficient, smaller, newer, and listed at a lower launch MSRP. The WX 9100 remains a functional GPU for legacy environments that require its specific output configuration or for which software has not been updated for newer architectures, but the benchmark record shows no scenario where it outperforms the W7700. The W7700 is the correct pick for new builds, upgrades, or any workload where the database's measured performance matters.