GPU Comparison

NVIDIA A10G decisively outperforms the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 in the available benchmark data, winning both head-to-head tests with a substantial lead in OpenCL and a more modest advantage in Vulkan. The A10G’s average benchmark score of 151,963 places it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7700’s 118,976 average sits in the 95th percentile, indicating that while both are high-end performers, the A10G occupies a higher performance tier overall.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant gap between these two cards appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA A10G scores 158,063 against the AMD Radeon PRO W7700’s 108,245. This represents a 46% advantage for the A10G, a massive margin that underscores its superiority in compute-heavy, general-purpose workloads. The A10G’s performance here is not an outlier; its average score across all benchmarks is 151,963, which is consistent with its OpenCL result. The W7700’s OpenCL score of 108,245 is notably lower than its Vulkan result, suggesting that its architecture is less optimized for OpenCL compute tasks relative to its graphics performance.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the A10G again comes out on top, scoring 145,863 versus the W7700’s 129,706. The 12.5% delta is far narrower than the OpenCL gap, showing that the W7700 is more competitive in graphics-oriented or Vulkan-accelerated workloads. This pattern, a large lead in OpenCL and a smaller lead in Vulkan, suggests the A10G’s strengths lie in raw compute throughput, while the W7700 closes the distance in rendering tasks. The A10G’s Vulkan score is slightly lower than its OpenCL score, while the W7700’s Vulkan score is significantly higher than its OpenCL score, confirming that the AMD card is relatively better suited to graphics APIs.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the A10G’s average score of 151,963 puts it 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100 PCIe 32 GB (150,305) and 9.3% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI100 (139,035). However, it trails the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X by 5.4% (160,671) and the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB by 6.5% (162,504). The W7700’s average score of 118,976 places it just 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393) and 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (117,088), while leading the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395) by 4% and the RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944) by 4.4%. These numbers show that the A10G competes in a higher performance bracket than the W7700, which aligns with their respective percentile rankings.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A10G is the clear winner in compute-intensive applications, as evidenced by its 46% lead in OpenCL. This advantage is likely attributable to its massive shading unit count and dedicated tensor cores, which are absent from the W7700. For workloads like machine learning inference, scientific simulation, or data processing that rely on OpenCL or CUDA-accelerated libraries, the A10G is the superior choice. Its 97th percentile ranking versus the W7700’s 95th further reinforces that it sits in a higher performance class for general compute tasks.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700, while losing both benchmarks, shows relative strength in Vulkan workloads. Its Vulkan score of 129,706 is 19.8% higher than its OpenCL score, indicating that its RDNA 3.0 architecture is more balanced toward graphics rendering. In scenarios where Vulkan is the primary API, such as real-time visualization, game development, or certain CAD applications, the W7700’s deficit narrows to 12.5%, making it a more viable option than the OpenCL numbers suggest. The W7700 also has a significant advantage in display outputs, offering 4x DisplayPort 2.1, whereas the A10G has no display outputs at all. This makes the W7700 the only choice for direct monitor connectivity or workstation use cases requiring visual output.

The A10G’s wins are concentrated in raw computational power, while the W7700’s strengths lie in graphics API performance and connectivity. Benchmark results indicate that users prioritizing compute performance should choose the A10G, while those needing display outputs or Vulkan-optimized rendering should consider the W7700, despite its lower overall scores.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark, starting with the manufacturing process. The NVIDIA A10G uses an 8 nm process at Samsung, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. This process advantage allows the W7700 to achieve a much higher transistor density of 81.2M per mm² versus the A10G’s 45.1M per mm², despite both cards having nearly identical transistor counts (28,300 million for the A10G and 28,100 million for the W7700). The W7700’s die size is consequently much smaller at 346 mm² compared to the A10G’s 628 mm².

The A10G is built on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture (GA102 chip), which is designed for server and datacenter workloads. It features 9,216 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 288 tensor cores. The tensor cores are a critical differentiator, as they provide hardware acceleration for AI and deep learning tasks, a feature the W7700 completely lacks. The A10G’s FP32 performance is 31.52 TFLOPS, with FP16 performance also at 31.52 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), indicating that it does not boost FP16 throughput.

In contrast, the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture (Navi 32 chip, codename "Wheat Nas"), which is optimized for graphics and compute in workstations. It has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 48 RT cores, but no tensor cores. The W7700’s FP32 performance is 31.95 TFLOPS, slightly higher than the A10G, but its FP16 performance is 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which is double its FP32 rate. This means the W7700 has a significant advantage in FP16 compute tasks, despite having far fewer shading units, due to its architecture’s ability to execute two FP16 operations per clock cycle.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. However, the A10G’s server-oriented design means it has no display outputs, while the W7700 includes 4x DisplayPort 2.1, reflecting their different target markets. The A10G is a compute accelerator meant for headless servers, while the W7700 is a workstation GPU designed for professional visualization.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge significantly across nearly every major specification category. Memory capacity is a key differentiator: the A10G offers 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 600.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 576.0 GB/s. The A10G’s larger memory and wider bus give it a clear edge in capacity and bandwidth, which is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The A10G has a base clock of 1320 MHz and a boost clock of 1710 MHz, while the W7700 runs at 1900 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost. The W7700’s higher clocks help it achieve comparable FP32 throughput despite having far fewer shading units, but the A10G’s sheer number of cores (9,216 vs 3,072) dominates in raw parallel processing.

Memory clock speeds show a similar pattern: the A10G’s memory runs at 1563 MHz (12.5 Gbps effective), while the W7700’s memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The W7700’s faster memory clock partially compensates for its narrower bus, but the A10G still wins on total bandwidth. Pixel and texture rates are close, with the A10G at 164.2 GPixel/s and 492.5 GTexel/s, while the W7700 achieves 249.6 GPixel/s and 499.2 GTexel/s, the W7700 actually leads in pixel rate due to its higher clocks.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The A10G has a TDP of 150 W and is single-slot, using an 8-pin EPS power connector. The W7700 has a higher TDP of 190 W and is dual-slot, using a single 8-pin connector. Both have a suggested PSU of 450 W. The A10G is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus the W7700’s 241 mm (9.5 inches), but they have nearly identical heights (112 mm vs 111 mm). The A10G is marked as end-of-life, with a release date of April 2021, while the W7700 was released in November 2023 and has no production status listed. The A10G’s predecessor is Tesla Turing and its successor is Server Ada, while the W7700’s predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega with no successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA A10G wins decisively, scoring 158,063 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the AMD Radeon PRO W7700’s 108,245, a 46% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 have any advantages in graphics workloads?

A: Yes, in Vulkan the gap narrows significantly. The A10G scores 145,863 versus the W7700’s 129,706, a 12.5% lead. The W7700 also offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the A10G has no display outputs.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The A10G has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 600.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has tensor cores for AI workloads?

A: Only the NVIDIA A10G has tensor cores, featuring 288 of them. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has no tensor cores, making the A10G the better choice for machine learning acceleration.

Q: What are the FP16 performance differences?

A: The A10G delivers 31.52 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the W7700 delivers 63.90 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), making the W7700 twice as fast in FP16 compute.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The A10G has a lower TDP of 150 W compared to the W7700’s 190 W, and it achieves higher benchmark scores, indicating better performance per watt.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA A10G is the superior performer in both available benchmarks, winning the OpenCL test by 46% and the Vulkan test by 12.5%. Its average benchmark score of 151,963 places it in the 97th percentile, well above the W7700’s 95th percentile and 118,976 average. For users prioritizing raw compute, AI acceleration via its 288 tensor cores, or larger memory capacity (24 GB vs 16 GB), the A10G is the clear choice, despite being end-of-life.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700, however, is not without merit. Its 5 nm process, higher clock speeds (2600 MHz boost vs 1710 MHz), and superior FP16 throughput (63.90 TFLOPS vs 31.52 TFLOPS) make it a strong option for workloads that leverage FP16 or Vulkan. Its 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs make it the only viable option for direct display connectivity, and its smaller size (241 mm vs 267 mm) and dual-slot design may fit better in workstation chassis. The W7700 also has a launch MSRP of 999 USD, which can be stated as a point of reference.

Benchmark results indicate that the A10G is aimed at server and datacenter compute, while the W7700 targets professional workstations requiring graphics output. Users with compute-heavy, headless workloads should pick the A10G; those needing a workstation GPU with display support and competitive Vulkan performance should pick the W7700, accepting lower OpenCL scores. The A10G’s 2-0 win record in head-to-head tests makes it the default recommendation for pure performance, with the W7700 serving as a specialized alternative for graphics-centric environments.