AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs AMD Radeon RX 7900M Comparison

# AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs AMD Radeon RX 7900M

The benchmark data splits these two AMD RDNA 3.0 GPUs along clear lines: the RX 7900M wins both head-to-head tests decisively, while the PRO W7700 offers workstation-oriented features at a higher launch MSRP. The RX 7900M leads by 16.4% in Geekbench OpenCL and 18.3% in Geekbench Vulkan, yet the PRO W7700 counters with a 95th-percentile standing versus the RX 7900M’s 94th percentile. Neither card is a universal victor; their strengths align with different use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7900M dominates in raw compute performance. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 129,499 against the PRO W7700’s 108,245, a 16.4% advantage. The Vulkan gap widens further: 158,760 versus 129,706, an 18.3% margin. These are not marginal differences—they represent a substantial compute advantage for the mobile GPU in both general-purpose and graphics API workloads.

The PRO W7700’s wins are structural rather than benchmark-driven. It carries a 95th-percentile rank among all GPUs, one point higher than the RX 7900M’s 94th percentile. That ranking reflects its average benchmark score of 118,976, which exceeds the RX 7900M’s 97,487 average. The PRO W7700’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GB10 (1.3% higher), NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (1.6% higher), NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (4% higher), and NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (4.4% higher). The RX 7900M, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon Pro VII (0.4% higher) and trails the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 by 4.3%.

The RX 7900M wins outright in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 4,201—a test the PRO W7700 does not have a recorded score for. This suggests a stronger fit for gaming-oriented DirectX 12 workloads. The PRO W7700’s dual-slot design, four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, and 450 W suggested PSU point toward fixed workstation installations, while the RX 7900M’s IGP form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs target mobile platforms.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the RDNA 3.0 architecture and a 5 nm TSMC process node, but their silicon implementations diverge significantly. The PRO W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip (codename "Wheat Nas") with 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 81.2 million per mm². The RX 7900M employs the larger Navi 31 chip (codename "Plum Bonito") with 57,700 million transistors across 529 mm², achieving a higher density of 109.1 million per mm².

The RX 7900M’s larger chip translates into more execution resources. It packs 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, and 192 render output units, versus the PRO W7700’s 3,072 shaders, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. Ray tracing cores follow the same pattern: 72 on the RX 7900M versus 48 on the PRO W7700. The RX 7900M also leads in pixel rate (401.3 GPixel/s versus 249.6 GPixel/s) and texture rate (601.9 GTexel/s versus 499.2 GTexel/s).

Clock speeds tell a different story. The PRO W7700 boosts to 2600 MHz from a 1900 MHz base, while the RX 7900M boosts to only 2090 MHz from an 1825 MHz base. Despite the lower clocks, the RX 7900M’s wider execution hardware yields higher FP32 throughput at 38.52 TFLOPS versus 31.95 TFLOPS for the PRO W7700. FP16 follows suit: 77.05 TFLOPS versus 63.90 TFLOPS (both at 2:1 ratio).

Memory configurations are identical in capacity, type, and bandwidth: 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s. Both run memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The PRO W7700’s 190 W TDP slightly exceeds the RX 7900M’s 180 W, but the PRO W7700 requires a single 8-pin power connector while the RX 7900M uses none—consistent with its integrated mobile design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in the head-to-head tests?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7900M wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks. It scores 129,499 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 108,245 for the PRO W7700 (16.4% lead) and 158,760 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 129,706 (18.3% lead).

Q: Does the PRO W7700 have any performance advantage over the RX 7900M?

A: Yes, based on aggregate metrics. The PRO W7700 holds a 95th-percentile rank versus the RX 7900M’s 94th percentile, and its average benchmark score of 118,976 exceeds the RX 7900M’s 97,487. This occurs despite losing both individual head-to-head tests because the RX 7900M’s average includes its 3DMark Steel Nomad score, which is not recorded for the PRO W7700.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: They are identical. Both GPUs feature 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth and 18 Gbps effective memory speed.

Q: What are the key differences in chip resources?

A: The RX 7900M has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 192 ROPs, and 72 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 48 ray tracing cores. The RX 7900M also uses a larger Navi 31 chip with 57,700 million transistors versus Navi 32’s 28,100 million.

Q: Which card is better for a fixed workstation setup?

A: The PRO W7700 is designed for that role. It has a dual-slot form factor, four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, a 450 W suggested PSU, and a 241 mm length. The RX 7900M is an IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs, meaning its display connectivity depends entirely on the host device.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each card?

A: The PRO W7700 has a launch MSRP of 999 USD. The RX 7900M has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7700 | AMD Radeon RX 7900M |

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

| Chip | Navi 32 | Navi 31 |

| Codename | Wheat Nas | Plum Bonito |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) | Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) |

| Transistors | 28,100 million | 57,700 million |

| Die Size | 346 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 81.2M / mm² | 109.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1900 MHz | 1825 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2600 MHz | 2090 MHz |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 4608 |

| TMUs | 192 | 288 |

| ROPs | 96 | 192 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | 72 |

| Pixel Rate | 249.6 GPixel/s | 401.3 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 499.2 GTexel/s | 601.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 31.95 TFLOPS | 38.52 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1) | 77.05 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 190 W | 180 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | None listed |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 241 mm (9.5 inches) x 111 mm (4.4 inches) | Not listed |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

| Release Date | 2023-11-12 | 2023-10-18 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Polaris Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | 999 USD | None listed |

Identical fields include manufacturer (AMD), architecture (RDNA 3.0), process node (5 nm), foundry (TSMC), memory size (16 GB), memory type (GDDR6), memory bus width (256 bit), memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s), memory clock (2250 MHz / 18 Gbps effective), bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x16), DirectX (12 Ultimate 12_2), OpenGL (4.6), Vulkan (1.4), and tensor cores (none).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clean sweep for the RX 7900M in direct comparisons. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7900M’s 129,499 beats the PRO W7700’s 108,245 by 16.4%. This is a substantial lead in a compute-oriented benchmark that stresses general-purpose GPU throughput. The RX 7900M’s higher shader count (4,608 versus 3,072) and greater FP32 throughput (38.52 TFLOPS versus 31.95 TFLOPS) explain the margin despite its lower 2090 MHz boost clock.

Geekbench Vulkan shows an even larger gap. The RX 7900M scores 158,760 versus 129,706 for the PRO W7700, an 18.3% advantage. The wider delta in Vulkan suggests the RX 7900M’s additional ray tracing cores (72 versus 48) and higher pixel rate (401.3 GPixel/s versus 249.6 GPixel/s) contribute meaningfully to graphics API performance beyond raw compute.

The RX 7900M also holds a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 4,201, a benchmark absent from the PRO W7700’s data. This indicates the RX 7900M has been tested in modern DirectX 12 workloads, aligning with its consumer-oriented RX 7000 series branding.

The PRO W7700’s counter-evidence comes from aggregate statistics. Its average benchmark score of 118,976 exceeds the RX 7900M’s 97,487 by roughly 22%. This discrepancy arises because the RX 7900M’s average includes its lower 3DMark score, while the PRO W7700’s average derives solely from its two Geekbench results. The PRO W7700’s 95th percentile rank versus the RX 7900M’s 94th percentile reflects this higher average, though the RX 7900M’s individual test wins are unambiguous.

Nearest-rival data contextualizes both cards differently. The PRO W7700 sits within 4.4% of four NVIDIA workstation and datacenter parts, including the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation and Tesla V100 SXM2. The RX 7900M’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro VII (0.4% higher) and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (4.3% lower), positioning it in professional-adjacent territory despite its mobile design.

The Verdict

The RX 7900M is the performance winner in every head-to-head test the data provides. Its 16.4% OpenCL lead and 18.3% Vulkan lead are decisive, and its 3DMark Steel Nomad score adds a DirectX 12 data point the PRO W7700 lacks. Users prioritizing raw compute or graphics API throughput should select the RX 7900M, provided their system can accommodate an IGP with portable-device-dependent display outputs and no dedicated power connectors.

The PRO W7700 is the workstation-format choice. Its dual-slot layout, four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, 450 W suggested PSU, and discrete 8-pin power connector make it suitable for fixed desktop installations where display flexibility and serviceability matter. Its 95th-percentile rank and higher average benchmark score (118,976 versus 97,487) suggest superior consistency across aggregate metrics, even if it loses the direct comparisons.

Card selection depends on context. For a laptop or portable device where the RX 7900M’s IGP design and 180 W TDP fit the power envelope, its performance advantages are compelling. For a stationary workstation requiring multiple DisplayPort connections, the PRO W7700’s 999 USD launch MSRP buys a 95th-percentile GPU with a dedicated professional feature set, albeit one that trails the RX 7900M in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. The data does not support a single universal recommendation—the RX 7900M wins on performance, the PRO W7700 wins on workstation integration.