AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has an average benchmark score of 118,976, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, resulting in an average of 0.

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

A: The W7700 is 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GB10, 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, 4% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, and 4.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 uses a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses a 3 nm process, also at TSMC.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16,384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 delivers 31.95 TFLOPS FP32, while the NVIDIA Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 has a TDP of 190 W with a suggested PSU of 450 W. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2300 W with a suggested PSU of 2700 W.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 32 chip, codenamed Wheat Nas. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation (Navi III Series). The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses the Rubin architecture with the GR100 chip and belongs to the Server Rubin generation (Rxx).

The process node difference is significant. The W7700 uses TSMC's 5 nm process, while the Rubin GPU uses TSMC's 3 nm process. This contributes to a major transistor count disparity: the W7700 has 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 81.2M per mm². The Rubin GPU has 336,000 million transistors on a 1,456 mm² die, achieving a density of 230.8M per mm².

The Rubin GPU is a server-class part with no display outputs, while the W7700 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The Rubin supports no graphics APIs (DirectX N/A, OpenGL N/A, Vulkan N/A), whereas the W7700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The W7700 features 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 48 ray tracing cores. The Rubin GPU has 28,672 shading units, 896 TMUs, 24 ROPs, and 896 tensor cores. The Rubin does not list ray tracing cores in the database, while the W7700 does not list tensor cores.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The W7700 runs at a 1900 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost. The Rubin GPU runs at a 700 MHz base and 2267 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the W7700 uses 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the Rubin uses 2695 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective).

The Rubin GPU is an SXM Module with a dual-slot requirement unspecified, while the W7700 is a dual-slot card with a 241 mm length and 111 mm height. The W7700 uses a single 8-pin power connector; the Rubin has no power connector listed. The bus interface differs as well: PCIe 4.0 x16 for the W7700 versus PCIe 6.0 x16 for the Rubin.

The Verdict

The data shows two GPUs designed for entirely different purposes. The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation graphics card with a 95th percentile ranking among all GPUs, demonstrated benchmark scores, and a 999 USD launch MSRP. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU is a server accelerator with a 50th percentile ranking, no recorded benchmarks, and no launch MSRP.

For workloads requiring display output, graphics API support, and established benchmark performance, the W7700 is the only viable option between the two. Its average benchmark score of 118,976 places it ahead of several NVIDIA rivals, including the GB10, RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB, and RTX A5500 Mobile. The W7700 uses 190 W TDP with a 450 W suggested PSU, making it suitable for conventional workstation builds.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU targets server deployments where graphics output is irrelevant. Its 288 GB HBM4 memory with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth and 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 performance indicate a compute-focused design. The 2300 W TDP and 2700 W suggested PSU place it in a different power class entirely.

Benchmark results indicate the W7700 is production-ready with recorded scores, while the Rubin shows no benchmark data. The Rubin's production status is listed as Active, and its release date is later than the W7700's. The W7700's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, while the Rubin's predecessor is Server Blackwell.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7700 | NVIDIA Rubin GPU |

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

| Chip | Navi 32 | GR100 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Rubin |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 28,100 million | 336,000 million |

| Die Size | 346 mm² | 1456 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 81.2M / mm² | 230.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1900 MHz | 700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2600 MHz | 2267 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 288 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM4 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 16384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 22.1 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 3072 | 28672 |

| TMUs | 192 | 896 |

| ROPs | 96 | 24 |

| RT Cores | 48 | Not listed |

| Tensor Cores | Not listed | 896 |

| Pixel Rate | 249.6 GPixel/s | 54.41 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 499.2 GTexel/s | 2,031.2 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 31.95 TFLOPS | 130.0 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1) | 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 190 W | 2300 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | SXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 2700 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 6.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | No outputs |

| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | N/A |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | N/A |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | N/A |

| Release Date | 2023-11-12 | 2025-12-31 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Server Blackwell |

| Launch MSRP | 999 USD | Not listed |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU. The head-to-head benchmarks list is empty, and neither GPU records wins in direct comparisons.

However, the W7700 has two individual benchmark scores: 108,245 in Geekbench OpenCL and 129,706 in Geekbench Vulkan. These contribute to its average benchmark score of 118,976. The Rubin GPU has no benchmark entries, leaving its average at 0.

The W7700's recorded results place it in the 95th percentile among all GPUs. The nearest rivals in the database provide context for its performance level. The W7700 outperforms the NVIDIA GB10 (avg score 117,393) by 1.3%, the NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (117,088) by 1.6%, the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395) by 4%, and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944) by 4.4%.

The Rubin GPU's 50th percentile ranking reflects its lack of benchmark data rather than measured performance. Its specification sheet shows raw compute capabilities far exceeding the W7700: 130.0 TFLOPS FP32 versus 31.95 TFLOPS, 22.1 TB/s memory bandwidth versus 576.0 GB/s, and 288 GB memory versus 16 GB.

The texture rate comparison shows the Rubin at 2,031.2 GTexel/s against the W7700's 499.2 GTexel/s. However, the pixel rate tells a different story: the W7700 achieves 249.6 GPixel/s while the Rubin manages 54.41 GPixel/s, reflecting the W7700's workstation graphics orientation versus the Rubin's compute focus.

The FP16 figures show the Rubin at 260.0 TFLOPS (2:1) versus the W7700's 63.90 TFLOPS (2:1). Both use a 2:1 ratio for FP16 performance. The Rubin's tensor core count of 896 indicates AI acceleration capability, while the W7700 relies on its 48 ray tracing cores for graphics workloads.

The absence of benchmark data for the Rubin GPU means any performance comparison must rely on architectural specifications. The W7700 has proven results in the database, while the Rubin remains unmeasured. The data supports the W7700 as a tested, functional workstation GPU, and the Rubin as a high-specification server accelerator awaiting benchmark validation.