AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a split decision between these two workstation GPUs, with each taking one of the two recorded benchmark tests. The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 124,812 against the AMD Radeon PRO W7700’s 113,243, a 9.3% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD card strikes back decisively, posting 133,625 versus NVIDIA’s 109,364, a 22.2% lead. That is a substantial gap in the API-level test, nearly two-and-a-half times the margin NVIDIA secured in OpenCL.

Looking at broader averages, the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 holds an average benchmark score of 123,434, which places it 5.4% ahead of the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation’s 117,088 average. This aggregate figure flips the head-to-head OpenCL result, suggesting that the Vulkan performance advantage carries significant weight in the overall picture. The AMD card’s percentile ranking stands at 96 among all GPUs, identical to the NVIDIA card’s 96th percentile, so both sit in the same elite tier of overall performance.

When compared to other rivals in their respective listings, the AMD card sits 4.1% behind the NVIDIA L4 (which averages 128,665) and 6.4% behind the GeForce RTX 3090 Ti (131,911), while leading the Radeon Pro Vega II Duo by 7.4%. The NVIDIA card’s nearest-rival data shows it 1.9% ahead of the Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (114,878), 2.8% ahead of the RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944), and 6.5% ahead of the Radeon Pro Vega II (109,967), but 5.1% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7700. These deltas confirm that the AMD card is the stronger overall performer in this direct matchup, even though NVIDIA wins the OpenCL-specific workload.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD’s Radeon PRO W7700 uses the Navi 32 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Wheat Nas, from the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. NVIDIA’s RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation uses the AD104 chip on Ada Lovelace architecture, from the Workstation Ada (x000A) generation. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 5 nm process, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: AMD packs 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, yielding a density of 81.2 million transistors per mm², while NVIDIA fits 35,800 million transistors on a smaller 294 mm² die, achieving 121.8 million per mm². That higher density is a hallmark of NVIDIA’s design approach.

Core configurations differ just as dramatically. The AMD card fields 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 raster operation pipelines, alongside 48 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. NVIDIA counters with 6,144 shading units — exactly double — but only 192 TMUs and 64 ROPs, with 48 ray tracing cores and 192 tensor cores. The shading-unit advantage is clear for NVIDIA, but the ROP deficit (64 versus 96) and TMU parity means AMD’s raw fill-rate hardware is stronger in some respects. Clock speeds tell a different story: AMD runs at a 1900 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost, while NVIDIA sits at just 720 MHz base and 1560 MHz boost. That clock gap explains why AMD achieves a pixel rate of 249.6 GPixel/s versus NVIDIA’s 99.84 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 499.2 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s.

Memory subsystems are also divergent. AMD offers 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). NVIDIA provides 20 GB of GDDR6 on a narrower 160-bit bus, capping bandwidth at 280.0 GB/s at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). AMD’s bandwidth is more than double, but NVIDIA’s capacity is 25% larger. Floating-point performance favors AMD on paper: 31.95 TFLOPS FP32 versus NVIDIA’s 19.17 TFLOPS, and 63.90 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio) versus 19.17 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The power envelope is where NVIDIA dominates, with a 70 W TDP against AMD’s 190 W, and no power connectors required versus AMD’s 1x 8-pin. NVIDIA suggests a 250 W PSU; AMD asks for 450 W. Physically, AMD is larger at 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall, while NVIDIA measures just 168 mm (6.6 inches) by 69 mm (2.7 inches). Both are dual-slot and use PCIe 4.0 x16.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is the clear winner in Vulkan-accelerated workloads, as evidenced by its 22.2% lead in the Geekbench Vulkan test. That 133,625 score versus 109,364 is the single largest margin in this comparison. The card’s raw compute specifications support this: with 31.95 TFLOPS FP32 and 63.90 TFLOPS FP16, it has more than 1.6 times the FP32 throughput and more than 3.3 times the FP16 throughput of the NVIDIA card. Its 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than double NVIDIA’s 280.0 GB/s, which helps in bandwidth-hungry rendering tasks. The higher pixel rate (249.6 GPixel/s) and texture rate (499.2 GTexel/s) also point to advantages in rasterization-heavy scenes. The AMD card’s higher boost clock of 2600 MHz versus 1560 MHz gives it a strong edge in clock-bound workloads.

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation wins in OpenCL, posting 124,812 against AMD’s 113,243. Its architecture compensates for lower clocks with double the shading units (6,144 versus 3,072) and a full complement of 192 tensor cores, which AMD lacks entirely. The 20 GB memory capacity is 4 GB larger than AMD’s 16 GB, which matters for large datasets that exceed 16 GB. NVIDIA’s 70 W TDP is a massive efficiency advantage — less than 37% of AMD’s 190 W draw — and the card requires no power connectors, making it far easier to integrate into space-constrained systems. Its compact 168 mm length and 69 mm height, versus AMD’s 241 mm and 111 mm, make it the obvious choice for small-form-factor chassis. NVIDIA also shows a production status of “Active” while AMD’s is not listed, and NVIDIA’s predecessor is Workstation Ampere with a successor in Blackwell PRO W, indicating a clearer product lifecycle.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is the faster card in overall benchmark terms, with a 5.4% higher average score and a decisive 22.2% Vulkan victory. Its compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and fill rates are all substantially higher on paper, and the average benchmark score confirms that these specifications translate into real-world performance advantages. For users whose workloads leverage Vulkan or rely on raw FP32/FP16 compute, the AMD card is the better choice, provided the 190 W power draw and larger physical footprint are acceptable.

The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is the better pick for OpenCL-centric workloads, where it leads by 9.3%, and for anyone constrained by power or space. A 70 W TDP with no external power connectors, a 168 mm length, and 69 mm height make it dramatically easier to deploy in small or densely packed systems. The 20 GB memory capacity also gives it a capacity advantage for datasets that exceed AMD’s 16 GB. The tensor cores (192) are a notable feature absent from the AMD card, which could matter for AI-adjacent tasks even though no tensor-specific benchmarks are recorded here.

Neither card dominates universally. The AMD card wins the higher-level API test and the overall average, while the NVIDIA card wins the OpenCL test and the efficiency/capacity battle. For a workstation where performance per watt or physical size is critical, the NVIDIA card is the data-backed choice. For maximum raw throughput in a standard workstation chassis, the AMD card’s numbers are simply stronger.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700, with an average score of 123,434, which is 5.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation’s 117,088.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 133,625 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 22.2% higher than the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation’s 109,364.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 20 GB of GDDR6, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6, a 4 GB difference in NVIDIA’s favor.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has a 70 W TDP with no power connectors and suggests a 250 W PSU, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has a 190 W TDP with a 1x 8-pin connector and suggests a 450 W PSU.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation has 6,144 shading units, exactly double the AMD Radeon PRO W7700’s 3,072.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, though their benchmark performance in those APIs differs significantly.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7700 | NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation |

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

| Chip | Navi 32 | AD104 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Codename | Wheat Nas | None |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) | Workstation Ada (x000A) |

| Transistors | 28,100 million | 35,800 million |

| Die Size | 346 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 81.2M / mm² | 121.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1900 MHz | 720 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2600 MHz | 1560 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 20 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 160 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 280.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 6144 |

| TMUs | 192 | 192 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 48 | 48 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 192 |

| Pixel Rate | 249.6 GPixel/s | 99.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 499.2 GTexel/s | 299.5 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 31.95 TFLOPS | 19.17 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1) | 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 190 W | 70 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 250 W |

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

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Production Status | Not listed | Active |

| Release Date | 2023-11-12 | 2023-03-20 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Workstation Ampere |

| Successor | None | Blackwell PRO W |

| Launch MSRP | 999 USD | None |