AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB Comparison

# AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 and NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB occupy distinct positions in the professional GPU landscape, with the former built for graphics-centric workflows and the latter optimized for compute-heavy server deployments. Benchmark data shows a split decision: the AMD card wins the Vulkan test by a substantial 19.8% margin, while the NVIDIA card takes the OpenCL test by 13.6%. Their average benchmark scores are remarkably close—164,894 for the W7800 versus 162,504 for the A100—a difference of only 1.5% in favor of AMD. Both cards sit at the 97th percentile among all GPUs, placing them in the top tier of professional hardware, yet their architectural philosophies could hardly be more different.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 edges out the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB with an average score of 164,894 compared to 162,504, a margin of 1.5%. This places the W7800 slightly ahead in overall benchmark performance, though both cards achieve the same 97th percentile ranking.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB wins the Geekbench OpenCL test decisively, scoring 178,627 against the W7800's 154,366. This represents a 13.6% advantage for NVIDIA in this particular compute workload.

Q: What about Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 takes the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 175,422, while the A100 manages only 146,380. The AMD card leads by 19.8% in this graphics-oriented API benchmark.

Q: Which card has more memory, and what type?

A: The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB comes with 40 GB of HBM2e memory on a 5120-bit bus, delivering 1.56 TB/s of bandwidth. The AMD W7800 offers 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth—the A100 has more capacity and dramatically higher bandwidth.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for these cards?

A: The AMD W7800 has a TDP of 260 W, while the NVIDIA A100 is rated at 250 W. Both cards recommend a 600 W power supply and occupy a dual-slot form factor.

Q: Are there differences in display output capabilities?

A: Yes, significant ones. The AMD W7800 provides 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB has no display outputs at all, reflecting its server-oriented design.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different architectural approaches. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is built on the Navi 31 chip using RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Plum Bonito, and manufactured on TSMC's 5 nm process. It packs 57,700 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB uses the GA100 chip with Ampere architecture, produced on TSMC's 7 nm process, with 54,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 826 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 65.6M per mm².

The compute configurations diverge sharply. The W7800 features 4480 shading units, 280 texture mapping units, 128 ROPs, and 70 ray tracing cores, but no dedicated tensor cores. The A100 counters with 6912 shading units, 432 TMUs, 160 ROPs, and 432 tensor cores, but no ray tracing cores. This explains their different strengths: AMD prioritizes graphics and ray tracing, while NVIDIA focuses on tensor-heavy compute workloads.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The AMD card runs at a base clock of 1895 MHz and boosts to 2525 MHz, with memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA card operates at a much lower 765 MHz base and 1410 MHz boost, with memory at 1215 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective). Despite lower clocks, the A100's massive 5120-bit memory bus and HBM2e technology deliver 1.56 TB/s bandwidth—nearly three times the W7800's 576.0 GB/s.

The W7800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the A100 lists no API support in the data. The AMD card is actively in production, whereas the NVIDIA card is marked end-of-life. The W7800 was released in April 2023 with a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, while the A100 came out in June 2020 with no listed MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark results paint a clear picture of divergent optimization. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB scores 178,627 against the AMD W7800's 154,366—a 13.6% advantage for NVIDIA. This result aligns with the A100's architectural focus: 432 tensor cores and 77.97 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (at 4:1 ratio) make it a compute monster, and OpenCL workloads often leverage such capabilities. The A100's HBM2e memory with 1.56 TB/s bandwidth also reduces bottlenecks in memory-intensive compute tasks.

However, the tables turn in Geekbench Vulkan, where the AMD W7800 achieves 175,422 versus the A100's 146,380—a 19.8% margin in AMD's favor. The W7800's RDNA 3.0 architecture, with its 70 ray tracing cores and 45.25 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, is designed for modern graphics APIs like Vulkan. Its higher clock speeds (2525 MHz boost versus 1410 MHz) and dedicated graphics features give it a substantial edge in this workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the W7800's nearest rival is the NVIDIA RTX A5500 with an average score of 165,217, which beats the AMD card by just 0.2%. The RTX 4500 Ada Generation scores 166,094, a 0.7% lead over the W7800. The A100 sits 1.5% behind the W7800, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X leads by 2.2% with 168,574. For the A100's perspective, the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X trails by 1.1%, the W7800 leads by 1.4%, the RTX A5500 leads by 1.6%, and the RTX 4500 Ada Generation leads by 2.2%.

The split nature of these results—one win for each card with comparable margins—suggests that neither card is universally superior. The 13.6% OpenCL win for NVIDIA is substantial, but so is the 19.8% Vulkan win for AMD. The average scores nearly cancel out, with AMD holding a narrow 1.5% edge.

The Verdict

The data supports a workload-based recommendation rather than a blanket winner. For compute-heavy tasks that rely on OpenCL and benefit from tensor core acceleration, the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB is the clear choice—its 13.6% OpenCL advantage and 432 tensor cores make it suited for AI, scientific computing, and data center workloads. The 40 GB of HBM2e memory with 1.56 TB/s bandwidth provides ample capacity and speed for large datasets.

For graphics-centric workflows using Vulkan, the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is demonstrably better, with a 19.8% lead in that benchmark. Its 70 ray tracing cores, 45.25 TFLOPS FP32 performance, and display outputs make it a practical choice for visualization, rendering, and content creation. The W7800 is also the more modern product: it's still in active production, while the A100 is end-of-life.

The W7800's display outputs (3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1) versus the A100's complete lack of outputs further distinguishes their intended use cases. If a GPU needs to drive monitors, the A100 cannot do so without additional hardware. The W7800's higher base and boost clocks (1895 MHz and 2525 MHz versus 765 MHz and 1410 MHz) also favor graphics workloads, while the A100's lower clocks but wider memory bus reflect its compute-first design.

Users should also note the production status: the AMD card is active with a successor-free lineup, while the NVIDIA card is end-of-life with the Server Ada generation as its successor. This could affect long-term driver support and availability, though the A100 remains a capable performer based on benchmark data.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7800 | NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 57,700 million | 54,200 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 826 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 109.1M / mm² | 65.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1895 MHz | 765 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2525 MHz | 1410 MHz |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 40 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2e |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 5120 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 1.56 TB/s |

| Shading Units | 4480 | 6912 |

| TMUs | 280 | 432 |

| ROPs | 128 | 160 |

| RT Cores | 70 | null |

| Tensor Cores | null | 432 |

| FP32 Performance | 45.25 TFLOPS | 19.49 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) | 77.97 TFLOPS (4:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 323.2 GPixel/s | 225.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 707.0 GTexel/s | 609.1 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 260 W | 250 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 8-pin EPS |

| Display Outputs | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 | No outputs |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | null |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | null |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | null |

| Length | 280 mm (11 inches) | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | 110 mm (4.3 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | 40 mm (1.6 inches) | null |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-04-12 | 2020-06-21 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Tesla Turing |

| Successor | null | Server Ada |