AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 as the substantially stronger compute card. Its average benchmark score of 164894 places it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE sits at an 83rd percentile with an average score of 42723. The PRO W7800 delivers an 85.7% higher score in the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with 154366 versus 83109. The RX 7650 GRE does not win any recorded head-to-head test.

The PRO W7800 sits among workstation-class rivals in the database. Its average score trails the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation by 0.7%, the NVIDIA RTX A5500 by 0.2%, and the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X by 2.2%, while running 1.5% ahead of the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB. The RX 7650 GRE, by contrast, sits within 1.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER, the NVIDIA Quadro M6000 24 GB, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile, and the NVIDIA Quadro M6000. The data indicates the PRO W7800 belongs in a different performance class entirely, one aimed at compute-heavy professional workloads. The RX 7650 GRE occupies a mainstream segment where its scores cluster with mid-range consumer and older professional cards.

For buyers, the data alone suggests the PRO W7800 for tasks that demand maximum FP32 throughput, 32 GB memory capacity, and higher memory bandwidth. The RX 7650 GRE suits lighter workloads where its smaller footprint, lower power draw, and lower launch MSRP matter more. The PRO W7800 launched at 2,499 USD, while the RX 7650 GRE launched at 279 USD, a difference that reflects their distinct positioning.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the RDNA 3.0 architecture, but they are built on different chips and process nodes. The PRO W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The RX 7650 GRE uses the Navi 33 chip, fabricated on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The PRO W7800 packs 57,700 million transistors across a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The RX 7650 GRE contains 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, with a density of 65.2M per mm². The larger chip and higher density give the PRO W7800 a fundamental resource advantage.

The codenames differ: Plum Bonito for the PRO W7800, Hotpink Bonefish for the RX 7650 GRE. The PRO W7800 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation (Navi III Series), while the RX 7650 GRE is part of the Navi III (RX 7000) series. The PRO W7800's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, and the RX 7650 GRE lists Navi II as its predecessor and Navi IV as its successor. The RX 7650 GRE is explicitly part of the Radeon RX 7000 series, while the PRO W7800 has no series designation in the record.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card lists tensor cores. The PRO W7800's FP16 throughput is 90.50 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it doubles FP32 work. The RX 7650 GRE's FP16 is 22.08 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, meaning it processes FP16 at the same rate as FP32, no acceleration beyond the standard shader rate. This is a notable architectural difference for mixed-precision workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The PRO W7800 scores 154366, while the RX 7650 GRE scores 83109. The delta is 85.7% in favor of the PRO W7800. This is a decisive margin, nearly doubling the RX 7650 GRE's output. The PRO W7800's advantage comes from its larger shader array: 4480 shading units versus 2048, 280 texture units versus 128, and 128 ROPs versus 64. The PRO W7800 also has 70 ray accelerators, while the RX 7650 GRE has 32.

The FP32 compute rates align with this gap. The PRO W7800 delivers 45.25 TFLOPS, and the RX 7650 GRE delivers 22.08 TFLOPS, a 2.05x difference. The PRO W7800's texture rate is 707.0 GTexel/s versus 345.0 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 323.2 GPixel/s versus 172.5 GPixel/s. Each of these metrics roughly doubles, consistent with the OpenCL score difference.

The memory subsystem reinforces the gap. The PRO W7800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7650 GRE has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s. The PRO W7800 has four times the capacity and twice the bandwidth. For memory-bound workloads, the PRO W7800's advantage extends beyond raw compute.

The RX 7650 GRE's only recorded win is its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2336, but the PRO W7800 has no corresponding score in the shared benchmark list. The head-to-head tally shows one win for the PRO W7800 and zero for the RX 7650 GRE, based strictly on overlapping tests.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measured specification. The process node is 5 nm for the PRO W7800 versus 6 nm for the RX 7650 GRE. Transistor count is 57,700 million versus 13,300 million. Die size is 529 mm² versus 204 mm². Transistor density is 109.1M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm².

Base clocks are 1895 MHz on the PRO W7800 versus 1720 MHz on the RX 7650 GRE. Boost clocks are 2525 MHz versus 2695 MHz, with the RX 7650 GRE running faster at peak. The RX 7650 GRE also lists a game clock of 2350 MHz, while the PRO W7800 has no game clock recorded. Memory clocks are identical at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity is 32 GB versus 8 GB. Bus width is 256-bit versus 128-bit. Bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s. Shading units are 4480 versus 2048. TMUs are 280 versus 128. ROPs are 128 versus 64. Ray accelerators are 70 versus 32. Pixel rate is 323.2 GPixel/s versus 172.5 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 707.0 GTexel/s versus 345.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 45.25 TFLOPS versus 22.08 TFLOPS. FP16 is 90.50 TFLOPS versus 22.08 TFLOPS.

Power draw is 260 W for the PRO W7800 versus 170 W for the RX 7650 GRE. The PRO W7800 uses two 8-pin power connectors and suggests a 600 W PSU. The RX 7650 GRE uses one 8-pin connector and suggests a 450 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards. The PRO W7800 is 280 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 40 mm wide. The RX 7650 GRE is 204 mm long and 115 mm tall, with no width recorded. The PRO W7800 connects via PCIe 4.0 x16, while the RX 7650 GRE uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Display outputs differ. The PRO W7800 has three DisplayPort 2.1 connections and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The RX 7650 GRE has one HDMI 2.1a and three DisplayPort 2.1 connections. The PRO W7800 released on 2023-04-12, and the RX 7650 GRE released on 2025-02-06. Both are listed as Active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has an average benchmark score of 164894, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 7650 GRE has an average score of 42723, placing it in the 83rd percentile.

Q: How much faster is the PRO W7800 in the shared Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The PRO W7800 scores 154366, and the RX 7650 GRE scores 83109. The delta is 85.7% in favor of the PRO W7800.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The PRO W7800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 7650 GRE has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 7650 GRE has a boost clock of 2695 MHz, while the PRO W7800 boosts to 2525 MHz. The PRO W7800 has a higher base clock at 1895 MHz versus 1720 MHz.

Q: How do the FP32 compute rates compare?

A: The PRO W7800 delivers 45.25 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The RX 7650 GRE delivers 22.08 TFLOPS. The PRO W7800 also delivers 90.50 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, while the RX 7650 GRE delivers 22.08 TFLOPS of FP16 at a 1:1 ratio.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The PRO W7800 has a TDP of 260 W, uses two 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 600 W PSU. The RX 7650 GRE has a TDP of 170 W, uses one 8-pin connector, and suggests a 450 W PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The PRO W7800 wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its FP32 rate of 45.25 TFLOPS is roughly double the RX 7650 GRE's 22.08 TFLOPS, and its FP16 rate of 90.50 TFLOPS is more than quadruple the RX 7650 GRE's 22.08 TFLOPS. The recorded OpenCL benchmark confirms this in practice, showing an 85.7% advantage. For workloads that stress shading, texturing, or pixel output, the PRO W7800's 4480 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 128 ROPs provide the resources to sustain high throughput.

Memory capacity and bandwidth are another clear PRO W7800 win. The 32 GB frame buffer supports large datasets, high-resolution textures, and multi-model compute tasks that would exhaust the RX 7650 GRE's 8 GB. The 576.0 GB/s bandwidth is double the 288.0 GB/s of the RX 7650 GRE, reducing memory stalls in bandwidth-sensitive operations. The PRO W7800 also has 70 ray accelerators versus 32, giving it an edge in ray-traced workloads.

The RX 7650 GRE wins on efficiency and physical footprint. Its 170 W TDP is 90 W lower than the PRO W7800's 260 W, and it requires only a single 8-pin connector with a 450 W suggested PSU versus the PRO W7800's dual 8-pin and 600 W suggestion. The card is 204 mm long versus 280 mm, making it easier to fit in compact systems. Its boost clock of 2695 MHz is higher than the PRO W7800's 2525 MHz, and its game clock of 2350 MHz indicates sustained high-frequency operation in gaming scenarios. The RX 7650 GRE's 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 2336 shows it has a measurable presence in DirectX 12 gaming workloads, though no comparable PRO W7800 score exists in the shared benchmark data.

The RX 7650 GRE also offers a different display output set, with one HDMI 2.1a port alongside three DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the PRO W7800 provides three DisplayPort 2.1 and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1. For users connecting to HDMI displays, the RX 7650 GRE has an advantage. The PRO W7800's PCIe 4.0 x16 interface provides twice the lane width of the RX 7650 GRE's PCIe 4.0 x8, which matters for data transfer in compute contexts.

The PRO W7800's release date of 2023-04-12 and its predecessor Radeon Pro Vega indicate a professional lineage. The RX 7650 GRE, released on 2025-02-06 with a successor listed as Navi IV, belongs to a consumer-focused generation. The data shows two cards with the same architecture but different purposes: one maximizes compute and memory, the other maximizes efficiency and accessibility. The PRO W7800 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark and every major specification category except boost clock, game clock, physical height, and display port configuration.