AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs NVIDIA CMP 90HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head comparison between the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 and the NVIDIA CMP 90HX: the Geekbench OpenCL test. The results show a decisive victory for the AMD card. The Radeon PRO W7700 scores 108,245 points, while the CMP 90HX manages 69,000 points. This translates to a 56.9% advantage for the AMD part. To put that gap in perspective, the CMP 90HX would need to increase its score by more than half to match the W7700, a massive deficit in raw compute throughput.

Looking at the broader database context, the W7700’s average benchmark score is 118,976, placing it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in that score range include the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393, a delta of 1.3%), the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (117,088, a delta of 1.6%), and the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395, a delta of 4%). The W7700 sits comfortably above these well-known compute accelerators.

The CMP 90HX, on the other hand, has an average benchmark score of 69,000, which lands it in the 90th percentile. Its closest measured competitor is the Intel Arc A770 at 68,809, a near-tie with a delta of only 0.3%. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 (68,562, delta 0.6%) is equally close. Interestingly, the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 both score slightly higher than the CMP 90HX by 1.4% and 1.2%, respectively, showing that the CMP 90HX sits in a cluster of roughly similar-performing older or mid-range accelerators.

In the only recorded head-to-head, the W7700 wins 1 benchmark, and the CMP 90HX wins 0. The performance gap is not marginal; it is a dominant, category-level difference.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows that the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 wins decisively in general compute workloads, as evidenced by the Geekbench OpenCL result. This benchmark exercises raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth in a synthetic but representative manner. With 56.9% more score, the W7700 is clearly the superior choice for any task that relies on OpenCL acceleration, such as simulation, rendering, or scientific computing.

The CMP 90HX, based on its architecture and configuration, is designed for a different purpose, but the data does not show any benchmark win in its favor. The fact that it has no display outputs and a PCIe 1.0 x4 interface suggests it is not meant for interactive workloads. In this comparison, it simply does not have a recorded benchmark where it outperforms the W7700.

However, the CMP 90HX has certain architectural traits that might matter in niche scenarios, though the benchmark data does not directly measure them. For instance, it has more shading units (6,400 vs. 3,072) and more tensor cores (200 vs. none listed for the W7700). But the actual measured performance does not reflect these raw counts, possibly because of its lower clock speeds and inefficient compute scheduling. In the database, the only recorded win is the W7700's.

Thus, in every measured category, the W7700 wins. The CMP 90HX has no recorded benchmark victory.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is the superior product for any workload that uses OpenCL. Its score of 108,245 is more than 56% ahead of the CMP 90HX's 69,000, a gap that is simply too large to ignore. The W7700 also sits in the 95th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the CMP 90HX sits in the 90th, but that difference is minor compared to the head-to-head result.

Who should pick the W7700? Anyone who needs a GPU for professional compute tasks (rendering, machine learning inference, scientific simulation) and can use OpenCL. The W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, a 256-bit bus, and a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. It also has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it usable for visualization and workstation duties. Its TDP of 190 W is also lower, requiring only a single 8-pin connector and a 450 W power supply.

Who should pick the CMP 90HX? The data does not support pick over the W7700 for any standard compute task. The CMP 90HX has no display outputs, meaning it is strictly for backend compute or mining, but its benchmark score is far lower. Its only potential advantages are its 10 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 320-bit bus, which offers higher memory bandwidth (760.3 GB/s) compared to the W7700, but this does not translate into a better OpenCL result. The CMP 90HX is also listed as end-of-life, while the W7700 is a current product. For any professional or compute buyer, the W7700 is the clear recommendation.

FAQ

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between the two GPUs in the database?

A: The biggest difference is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 108,245 versus 69,000 for the NVIDIA CMP 90HX, a 56.9% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA CMP 90HX has a higher memory bandwidth at 760.3 GB/s, compared to the AMD Radeon PRO W7700's 576.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the NVIDIA CMP 90HX support display outputs?

A: No, the CMP 90HX has no display outputs, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has an average benchmark score of 118,985, while the NVIDIA CMP 90HX has an average score of 69,000.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The W7700 is 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GB10 and 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation. The CMP 90HX is 0.3% ahead of the Intel Arc A770 and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has a pixel rate of 249.6 GPixel/s, whereas the NVIDIA CMP 90HX has a pixel rate of 136.8 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD Radeon PRO W7700?

A: The launch MSRP is 999 USD. The NVIDIA CMP 90HX has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip with an RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Wheat Nas, and is built on a 5nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA CMP 90HX uses the GA102 chip with an Ampere architecture and is built on an 8nm process at Samsung. This difference in process node explains the die size: the AMD chip is 346 mm², while the NVIDIA chip is much larger at 628 mm². Transistor counts are close (28,100 million for AMD vs. 28,300 million for NVIDIA), but the AMD die is much denser at 81.2 million transistors per square millimeter versus 45.1 million for NVIDIA.

In terms of compute units, the W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It also has 48 ray tracing cores. The CMP 90HX has 6,400 shading units, 200 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, along with 50 RT cores and 200 tensor cores. Despite having more shading and RT cores, the CMP 90HX's lower clocks (base 1500 MHz, boost 1710 MHz) versus the W7700 (base 1900 MHz, boost 2600 MHz) and its different scheduling likely explain its lower benchmark performance.

The memory subsystems diverge as well. The W7700 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, while the CMP 90HX uses 10 GB of GDDR6X on a 320-bit bus. The NVIDIA card achieves higher bandwidth (760.3 GB/s vs. 576.0 GB/s), but the AMD card has more capacity.

The PCIe interface also differs: the W7700 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the CMP 90HX uses PCIe 1.0 x4, which is a severe bottleneck for data transfer in a modern system. The CMP 90HX has no display outputs, while the W7700 offers four DisplayPort 2.1 connections.

The CMP 90HX is part of NVIDIA's Mining GPUs generation, with a production status of end-of-life, while the W7700 is a current Radeon Pro product.

Specification Differences

• Process Node: 5 nm (AMD) vs. 8 nm (NVIDIA)
• Die Size: 346 mm² (AMD) vs. 628 mm² (NVIDIA)
• Transistor Density: 81.2M per mm² (AMD) vs. 45.1M per mm² (NVIDIA)
• Base Clock: 1900 MHz (AMD) vs. 1500 MHz (NVIDIA)
• Boost Clock: 2600 MHz (AMD) vs. 1710 MHz (NVIDIA)
• Memory Size: 16 GB (AMD) vs. 10 GB (NVIDIA)
• Memory Type: GDDR6 (AMD) vs. GDDR6X (NVIDIA)
• Memory Bus Width: 256-bit (AMD) vs. 320-bit (NVIDIA)
• Memory Bandwidth: 576.0 GB/s (AMD) vs. 760.3 GB/s (NVIDIA)
• Shading Units: 3,072 (AMD) vs. 6,400 (NVIDIA)
• TMUs: 192 (AMD) vs. 200 (NVIDIA)
• ROPs: 96 (AMD) vs. 80 (NVIDIA)
• RT Cores: 48 (AMD) vs. 50 (NVIDIA)
• Tensor Cores: Not listed (AMD) vs. 200 (NVIDIA)
• Pixel Rate: 249.6 GPixel/s (AMD) vs. 136.8 GPixel/s (NVIDIA)
• Texture Rate: 499.2 GTexel/s (AMD) vs. 342.0 GTexel/s (NVIDIA)
• FP32 Performance: 31.95 TFLOPS (AMD) vs. 21.89 TFLOPS (NVIDIA)
• FP16 Performance: 63.90 TFLOPS (AMD) vs. 21.89 TFLOPS (NVIDIA)
• TDP: 190 W (AMD) vs. 320 W (NVIDIA)
• Power Connectors: 1x 8-pin (AMD) vs. 2x 8-pin (NVIDIA)
• Suggested PSU: 450 W (AMD) vs. 700 W (NVIDIA)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 (AMD) vs. PCIe 1.0 x4 (NVIDIA)
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1 (AMD) vs. No outputs (NVIDIA)
• Dimensions: 241 mm length (AMD) vs. 285 mm length (NVIDIA); both have a height of 111-112 mm
• Release Date: 2023-11-12 (AMD) vs. 2021-07-27 (NVIDIA)
• Production Status: Not listed (AMD) vs. End-of-life (NVIDIA)
• Launch MSRP: 999 USD (AMD) vs. None listed (NVIDIA)