AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy: the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is the dominant performer in every recorded test, winning both head-to-head benchmarks decisively. The RTX A3000 Mobile, by contrast, occupies a lower performance tier, as its average benchmark score of 70,140 sits far below the W7700's 118,976. The data suggests these are not direct competitors but rather products aimed at different segments of the professional market. The W7700, with its 95th percentile ranking among all GPUs, is positioned for demanding workstation workloads where raw compute is paramount. The A3000 Mobile, at the 91st percentile, is a capable but clearly less powerful option, and its end-of-life production status indicates it is a legacy part. For any user prioritizing raw performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the W7700 is the unambiguous choice. For those constrained by power or form factor, the A3000 Mobile's mobile nature might be relevant, but the performance gap is so substantial that it is difficult to recommend on any performance basis.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, nodes, and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is based on the Navi 32 chip using the RDNA 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 28,100 million transistors into a 346 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 81.2 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile uses the GA104 chip with the older Ampere architecture, built on an 8 nm process at Samsung. It contains 17,400 million transistors on a larger 392 mm² die, giving a much lower transistor density of 44.4 million per square millimeter. The W7700's newer, denser process node is a clear architectural advantage, allowing more transistors in a smaller area.

The memory subsystems also differ significantly. The W7700 features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A3000 Mobile has only 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing 264.0 GB/s. This 312 GB/s bandwidth difference is substantial and will directly impact memory-bound workloads. The W7700 also has a much larger L2 cache architecture, though specific cache sizes are not recorded. In terms of compute resources, the W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 96 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The A3000 Mobile has more shading units at 4,096, but fewer TMUs at 128 and fewer ROPs at 64. The A3000 Mobile also includes 128 tensor cores, a feature the W7700 lacks entirely. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, indicating parity in API support.

Clock speeds reveal another stark contrast. The W7700 has a base clock of 1900 MHz and a boost clock of 2600 MHz, while the A3000 Mobile operates at a much lower 600 MHz base and 1230 MHz boost. This 1370 MHz boost clock advantage for the W7700 is a primary driver of its performance lead. The memory clocks also differ: the W7700 runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the A3000 Mobile runs at 1375 MHz (11 Gbps effective). The power envelopes are dramatically different, with the W7700 rated at 190 W TDP and the A3000 Mobile at just 70 W, reflecting the latter's mobile orientation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are lopsided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 scores 108,245 against the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile's 79,091, a 36.9% advantage. This is a significant margin, indicating that the W7700 delivers roughly 37% more compute performance in OpenCL workloads. The gap widens considerably in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the W7700 scores 129,706 versus the A3000 Mobile's 61,189. That represents a 112% delta, meaning the W7700 is more than twice as fast in Vulkan. This is an extraordinary difference, suggesting the A3000 Mobile is particularly weak in Vulkan applications, perhaps due to its lower clock speeds and older architecture.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this narrative. The W7700's average score of 118,976 places it 69.6% above the A3000 Mobile's 70,140. When comparing to their respective nearest rivals, the W7700 sits close to the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393, 1.3% delta) and NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (117,088, 1.6% delta), indicating it is well within the range of modern high-end workstation GPUs. The A3000 Mobile, however, is grouped with much older or lower-tier parts like the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986, 0.2% delta) and AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69,870, 0.4% delta). This positioning confirms that the A3000 Mobile, while not obsolete, is firmly in a lower performance class, competing with hardware from a previous generation.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals numerous differences beyond raw performance. The process node differs: 5 nm for the W7700 versus 8 nm for the A3000 Mobile. The foundry is TSMC for AMD and Samsung for NVIDIA. Transistor counts are 28,100 million versus 17,400 million, a 10,700 million difference. Die sizes are 346 mm² versus 392 mm², with the W7700 being smaller despite having more transistors. Transistor density is 81.2M/mm² versus 44.4M/mm². Base clocks are 1900 MHz versus 600 MHz, and boost clocks are 2600 MHz versus 1230 MHz. Memory size is 16 GB versus 6 GB. Memory bus width is 256-bit versus 192-bit. Memory bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s versus 264.0 GB/s. Shading units are 3,072 versus 4,096. TMUs are 192 versus 128. ROPs are 96 versus 64. Ray tracing cores are 48 versus 32. The A3000 Mobile has 128 tensor cores; the W7700 has none. Pixel rate is 249.6 GPixel/s versus 78.72 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 499.2 GTexel/s versus 157.4 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 31.95 TFLOPS versus 10.08 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 10.08 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP is 190 W versus 70 W. The W7700 has a dual-slot design with a single 8-pin power connector and requires a 450 W power supply; the A3000 Mobile has no power connectors listed and no suggested PSU. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.1 for the W7700 versus "Portable Device Dependent" for the A3000 Mobile. The W7700 has physical dimensions of 241 mm length and 111 mm height; the A3000 Mobile has no listed dimensions. Release dates are November 12, 2023 for the W7700 and April 11, 2021 for the A3000 Mobile. The A3000 Mobile is marked as end-of-life with a successor named "Ada-MW", while the W7700 has no successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has an average benchmark score of 118,976, while the NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile has an average score of 70,140, a difference of 48,836 points.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Vulkan performance?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the W7700 scores 129,706 versus the A3000 Mobile's 61,189, giving the AMD card a 112% performance advantage, meaning it is more than twice as fast.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the A3000 Mobile has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory, a 10 GB difference that impacts large dataset handling.

Q: Does the RTX A3000 Mobile have any features the W7700 lacks?

A: Yes, the A3000 Mobile includes 128 tensor cores, while the W7700 has no tensor cores listed. The A3000 Mobile also has a lower TDP of 70 W compared to the W7700's 190 W.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU according to the database?

A: The W7700's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393, 1.3% delta) and NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (117,088, 1.6% delta). The A3000 Mobile's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829, -1% delta) and NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986, 0.2% delta).

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The W7700 has a pixel rate of 249.6 GPixel/s, while the A3000 Mobile has a pixel rate of 78.72 GPixel/s, a difference of 170.88 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 wins in every recorded benchmark category, making it the superior choice for virtually all compute-intensive professional workloads. Its 36.9% lead in OpenCL and 112% lead in Vulkan indicate that it is not just marginally better but categorically faster in graphics and compute APIs. The W7700's higher FP32 throughput (31.95 TFLOPS vs 10.08 TFLOPS) and FP16 performance (63.90 TFLOPS vs 10.08 TFLOPS) make it ideal for scientific simulation, AI inference (though it lacks tensor cores), and real-time rendering. Its larger memory capacity (16 GB vs 6 GB) and higher bandwidth (576.0 GB/s vs 264.0 GB/s) favor workloads with large datasets, such as 3D scene compositing, video editing with high-resolution footage, and machine learning training on GPU memory. The W7700's dual-slot design and 190 W TDP are suited for desktop workstations where power and space are not primary constraints.

The NVIDIA RTX A3000 Mobile, while losing all benchmark comparisons, has its own niche. Its 70 W TDP and lack of a dedicated power connector make it suitable for mobile workstations, which is its stated design intent. The inclusion of 128 tensor cores, a feature the W7700 does not have, suggests it may have an advantage in specific AI-accelerated tasks that leverage tensor core operations, though no benchmark data confirms this. Its 4,096 shading units, while lower clocked, could theoretically excel in shader-heavy workloads that do not scale with clock speed. The A3000 Mobile's end-of-life status and position among rivals like the Quadro P6000 (0.2% delta) indicate it is a legacy solution for users who need a competent, power-efficient GPU for mobile professional work. The data, however, is unequivocal: for raw performance, the W7700 is the only choice, while the A3000 Mobile is for those who must prioritize portability and power efficiency over compute power.