AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows an extremely one-sided comparison between these two AMD GPUs. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 delivers an average benchmark score of 118,976, while the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU has no recorded benchmark scores at all, placing it at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. The Radeon PRO W7700 sits at the 95th percentile, a massive gap that reflects the fundamental difference in their design goals.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon PRO W7700 scores 108,245 points. Its Vulkan score reaches 129,706. The Ryzen Z2 A GPU has no entries in either test within the database, so direct numerical comparison is impossible. What the data confirms is that the PRO W7700 produces 31.95 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Z2 A GPU manages 1.638 TFLOPS, a near 20x difference in raw floating-point throughput.

The nearest rivals for the Radeon PRO W7700 provide context for its standing. The NVIDIA GB10 posts an average score of 117,393, which is 1.3% behind the PRO W7700. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation scores 117,088, trailing by 1.6%. The NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB reaches 114,395, a 4% deficit. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile rounds out the comparison at 113,944, 4.4% behind. These margins are narrow, indicating that the PRO W7700 competes effectively with upper-mid-range professional GPUs.

The Ryzen Z2 A GPU does not appear in any rival comparison within the database. Its average benchmark score of 0 and empty benchmark list mean that no performance claims can be made from measured data. The only numerical performance indicator is its theoretical FP32 rate of 1.638 TFLOPS, which is below even the pixel throughput of the PRO W7700 at 249.6 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W7700 wins in every measurable category. Its pixel rate of 249.6 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s for the Z2 A GPU shows a 10x advantage in rasterization throughput. Texture rate follows the same pattern: 499.2 GTexel/s against 51.20 GTexel/s, again a 10x gap. The shading unit count tells the story clearly, 3072 versus 512, and the TMU count of 192 versus 32 reinforces the disparity.

Memory bandwidth heavily favors the PRO W7700. It delivers 576.0 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR6 interface, while the Z2 A GPU manages 102.4 GB/s across a 128-bit LPDDR5 bus. The PRO W7700 also runs its memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) compared to 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective) on the Z2 A GPU.

The Ryzen Z2 A GPU does hold advantages in power efficiency and physical footprint. Its TDP of 15 W is drastically lower than the 190 W of the PRO W7700. The Z2 A GPU connects through a single USB Type-C output and requires no power connectors, while the PRO W7700 needs a dual-slot cooler and a 1x 8-pin power connector with a 450 W suggested PSU. For embedded or handheld applications, the Z2 A GPU's low power draw and minimal cooling requirements make it the only practical choice, but this comes at the cost of all performance metrics.

The PRO W7700 also wins on architectural features. It uses 48 ray tracing cores versus 8 on the Z2 A GPU. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical, but the execution resources behind those APIs differ enormously.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon PRO W7700 is built on the Navi 32 chip using RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Wheat Nas. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The manufacturing process is 5 nm at TSMC, with 28,100 million transistors packed into a 346 mm² die. Transistor density reaches 81.2 million per square millimeter.

The Ryzen Z2 A GPU uses the Van Gogh chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture. It is classified under Console GPU (AMD) generation. The process node is 7 nm, also from TSMC, with 2,400 million transistors on a 163 mm² die. Transistor density is 14.7 million per square millimeter.

These architectural differences explain the performance gap. RDNA 3.0 introduces improvements over RDNA 2.0 in compute efficiency and ray tracing, but the sheer scale difference dominates. The PRO W7700 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 48 RT cores. The Z2 A GPU has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and 8 RT cores. That is 6x more shading units, 6x more TMUs, 6x more ROPs, and 6x more RT cores.

Clock speeds also favor the PRO W7700. It runs at 1900 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost, while the Z2 A GPU operates at 1000 MHz base and 1600 MHz boost. The combination of more execution units and higher clocks produces the 31.95 TFLOPS FP32 output versus 1.638 TFLOPS.

Memory subsystems reflect different priorities. The PRO W7700 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 with a 256-bit bus, reaching 576.0 GB/s. The Z2 A GPU also has 16 GB, but uses LPDDR5 with a 128-bit bus, capping at 102.4 GB/s. Both have the same capacity, but the bandwidth difference is 5.6x.

The PRO W7700 has a launch MSRP of 999 USD. The Z2 A GPU has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Radeon PRO W7700 is a professional workstation GPU designed for compute-heavy workloads. Its 95th percentile standing, 31.95 TFLOPS FP32 rate, and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth place it firmly in the upper tier of the database. The nearest rival comparisons show it outperforming the NVIDIA GB10 by 1.3%, the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 1.6%, the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 4%, and the RTX A5500 Mobile by 4.4%. These are small but consistent margins across the board.

The Ryzen Z2 A GPU is a low-power embedded part. Its 15 W TDP, 1.638 TFLOPS FP32 rate, and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth position it for handheld or console-style applications where power draw matters more than raw throughput. The 50th percentile ranking and absence of benchmark data confirm that it does not compete in the same class.

Anyone selecting between these two should be guided by their power budget and workload requirements. The PRO W7700 requires a 450 W PSU, a dual-slot cooler, and a PCIe 4.0 x16 slot. It has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and a 241 mm length. The Z2 A GPU needs only a USB Type-C connection, no power connector, and operates within a 15 W envelope. It has no recorded dimensions or slot width, reflecting its integration into compact systems.

For rendering, simulation, AI inference, or any task that stresses FP32 compute, the PRO W7700 is the only viable option from the data. For portable or power-constrained devices, the Z2 A GPU is the only option that fits. The performance gap is so large that no use case bridges the two.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 delivers 31.95 TFLOPS FP32, compared to 1.638 TFLOPS for the AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU, a difference of roughly 19.5x.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU provide?

A: The Radeon PRO W7700 provides 576.0 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR6 interface, while the Ryzen Z2 A GPU provides 102.4 GB/s over a 128-bit LPDDR5 interface.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon PRO W7700 has a TDP of 190 W and requires a 450 W suggested PSU, while the Ryzen Z2 A GPU has a TDP of 15 W and lists no PSU requirement.

Q: How does the Radeon PRO W7700 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It leads the NVIDIA GB10 by 1.3%, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation by 1.6%, the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 4%, and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 4.4% in average benchmark scores.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The Radeon PRO W7700 has 48 RT cores, compared to 8 RT cores on the Ryzen Z2 A GPU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7700 | AMD Ryzen Z2 A GPU |

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

| Chip | Navi 32 | Van Gogh |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 28,100 million | 2,400 million |

| Die Size | 346 mm² | 163 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 81.2M / mm² | 14.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1900 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2600 MHz | 1600 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz, 18 Gbps effective | 800 MHz, 6.4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | LPDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 512 |

| TMUs | 192 | 32 |

| ROPs | 96 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 48 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 249.6 GPixel/s | 25.60 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 499.2 GTexel/s | 51.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 31.95 TFLOPS | 1.638 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1) | 3.277 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 190 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Not specified |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | Not specified |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | 1x USB Type-C |

| Dimensions | 241 mm length, 111 mm height | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2023-11-12 | 2024-12-31 |

| Production Status | Not specified | Active |