AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7900 Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 and W7800 are two workstation cards built on the same Navi 31 chip and RDNA 3.0 architecture, but they target different segments within the professional lineup. The W7900 sits at the top with a 99th percentile ranking and an average benchmark score of 166059, while the W7800 holds a 98th percentile and an average of 160108. Their nearest-rival data shows the W7900 is 3.7% ahead of the W7800 in average score, while the W7800 trails by the same margin in reverse. However, a closer look at individual workloads reveals a more nuanced picture.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute throughput?

A: The W7900 has 6144 shading units and 61.32 TFLOPS FP32, while the W7800 has 4480 shading units and 45.25 TFLOPS FP32. The W7900 also delivers 122.6 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) versus 90.50 TFLOPS on the W7800.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The W7900 has 48 GB GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the W7800 has 32 GB on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s. The memory clock is identical at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan?

A: The W7800 scores 165849 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the W7900 scores 137070, giving the W7800 a 17.4% advantage in that test.

Q: Which card wins in OpenCL?

A: The W7900 scores 195048 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 154366 for the W7800, a 26.4% lead.

Q: Are they the same physical size?

A: Both are 280 mm long and 110 mm high, but the W7900 is 51 mm wide and triple-slot, while the W7800 is 40 mm wide and dual-slot.

Q: Do they have the same power requirements?

A: No. The W7900 has a 295 W TDP, while the W7800 is 260 W. Both use two 8-pin connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the same Navi 31 chip, RDNA 3.0 architecture, and 5 nm TSMC process, with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The transistor density is identical at 109.1M / mm². The difference lies in how the silicon is configured. The W7900 enables more of the chip: 6144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 192 ROPs, and 96 RT cores. The W7800 disables portions: 4480 shading units, 280 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 70 RT cores. This directly affects pixel and texture rates: 479.0 GPixel/s and 958.1 GTexel/s on the W7900 versus 323.2 GPixel/s and 707.0 GTexel/s on the W7800.

The memory subsystem also diverges. The W7900 has a 384-bit bus and 48 GB of GDDR6, yielding 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7800 uses a 256-bit bus and 32 GB, giving 576.0 GB/s. Both run memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). Interestingly, the W7800 runs higher clocks: base 1895 MHz vs 1855 MHz, and boost 2525 MHz vs 2495 MHz. This partially compensates for its fewer cores in some workloads.

Both cards share the same display outputs (3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1), same API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), same PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, and same power connector layout (2x 8-pin). They also have identical length and height (280 mm x 110 mm), but the W7900 is 51 mm wide and triple-slot, while the W7800 is 40 mm wide and dual-slot. The W7800 has a lower TDP (260 W vs 295 W) and a smaller physical footprint, which makes it easier to fit in space-constrained systems.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two benchmark results are available, and they split decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7900 posts 195048 against the W7800's 154366, a 26.4% advantage. This aligns with the W7900's higher shading unit count, memory bandwidth, and pixel/texture rates. The W7900 also has 96 RT cores versus 70, which could influence ray-tracing workloads even though no RT-specific benchmark is listed.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the W7800 flips the result with 165849 versus 137070, a 17.4% lead for the W7800. This is notable because the W7800 has fewer cores but higher boost clock (2525 MHz vs 2495 MHz) and lower TDP (260 W vs 295 W). Vulkan often favors higher clocks and lower overhead, and the data suggests the W7800's configuration is more efficient in that API.

The average benchmark score across both tests puts the W7900 at 166059 and the W7800 at 160108, a 3.7% gap in favor of the W7900. The nearest-rival list confirms this: the W7900 is 3.7% ahead of the W7800, while the W7800 is 3.6% behind the W7900. The W7800 is essentially tied with the Radeon Pro W6900X (0% delta) and slightly behind the W6800X (-0.1%) and RTX A5500 (-0.6%). The W7900, meanwhile, leads the RTX A5500 by 3.1%, the W6800X by 3.6%, and the W6900X by 3.8%. These deltas show that the W7900 is a clear step above its immediate rivals, while the W7800 sits in a tight cluster with other high-end workstation cards.

The Verdict

The data does not declare a single winner; it depends on the API and workload. For OpenCL-heavy tasks—such as many compute and rendering workloads—the W7900 is clearly superior, with 26.4% higher performance in that benchmark and 48 GB of memory to handle larger datasets. Its higher pixel rate (479.0 GPixel/s) and texture rate (958.1 GTexel/s) also indicate stronger fill-rate performance. If your applications rely on OpenCL, the W7900 is the choice.

For Vulkan-based applications, the W7800 holds the advantage, delivering 17.4% more performance. Its higher boost clock and lower power draw (260 W vs 295 W) make it an efficient choice for Vulkan-centric pipelines. The W7800 also occupies less space: dual-slot versus triple-slot, and 40 mm width versus 51 mm. That physical difference can be critical in smaller workstations or when multiple cards are installed.

The average benchmark score favors the W7900 (166059 vs 160108), but the W7800 is within 3.7% overall. In the nearest-rival context, the W7900 leads the W7800 by 3.7%, while the W7800 is essentially tied with the W6900X and only 0.6% behind the RTX A5500. Thus, the W7800 is a strong contender for Vulkan-specific workflows, while the W7900 dominates compute-oriented tasks. Neither card is a clear overall winner; the decision hinges on the specific benchmark and physical constraints.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in the following fields (all other specs are identical):

• Base clock: 1855 MHz (W7900) vs 1895 MHz (W7800)
• Boost clock: 2495 MHz vs 2525 MHz
• Memory size: 48 GB vs 32 GB
• Memory bus width: 384 bit vs 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 864.0 GB/s vs 576.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 6144 vs 4480
• TMUs: 384 vs 280
• ROPs: 192 vs 128
• RT cores: 96 vs 70
• Pixel rate: 479.0 GPixel/s vs 323.2 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 958.1 GTexel/s vs 707.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 61.32 TFLOPS vs 45.25 TFLOPS
• FP16: 122.6 TFLOPS vs 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 295 W vs 260 W
• Slot width: Triple-slot vs Dual-slot
• Width: 51 mm vs 40 mm
• Launch MSRP: 3,999 USD for the W7900 and 2,499 USD for the W7800.

Where Each One Wins

The W7900 wins in OpenCL (195048 vs 154366), and its memory capacity (48 GB) and bandwidth (864.0 GB/s) make it the choice for large-scale compute, 3D rendering, and any workload that saturates VRAM. It also has more RT cores (96 vs 70) and higher pixel/texture rates, which could benefit ray tracing and high-resolution texturing. The W7900's 99th percentile ranking reflects its position at the top of the stack.

The W7800 wins in Vulkan (165849 vs 137070), and its higher boost clock (2525 MHz) and lower TDP (260 W) suggest it is more efficient for Vulkan-based game engines or real-time visualization. Its dual-slot design and narrower 40 mm width allow installation in tighter chassis. The W