GPU Comparison

NVIDIA L20 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7800

The NVIDIA L20 is the faster workstation GPU in this comparison, leading the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 in both benchmark tests tracked here. The L20’s average benchmark score of 251,147 places it in the 99th percentile among all GPUs, while the W7800’s 164,894 average sits in the 97th percentile, a 52.4% overall gap. The L20’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA L40 (11.6% slower average, at 284,111), while the W7800’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (0.2% faster, at 165,217). This data indicates the L20 is positioned a clear tier above the W7800 in raw compute, despite the W7800’s higher base clock and larger FP16 throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA L20, with an average benchmark score of 251,147, versus 164,894 for the AMD Radeon PRO W7800, a performance lead of roughly 52.4% in aggregate.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA L20 scores 274,276, which is 77.7% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7800’s 154,366. This is the largest single-test margin between the two cards.

Q: What about the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA L20 also wins the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 228,018 against the W7800’s 175,422, a 30% advantage.

Q: Which GPU has more memory capacity?

A: The NVIDIA L20 offers 48 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 provides 32 GB. The L20 also has a wider 384-bit bus and higher bandwidth (864.0 GB/s vs 576.0 GB/s).

Q: Are their process nodes the same?

A: Yes, both are fabricated by TSMC on a 5 nm process. However, the NVIDIA L20 packs more transistors (76,300 million) on a larger die (609 mm²) compared to the AMD’s 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 was released on 2023-04-12, while the NVIDIA L20 launched later, on 2023-11-15.

The Verdict

The data makes one thing clear: choose the NVIDIA L20 if you need maximum raw compute performance and memory capacity. The L20 wins both tracked benchmarks outright, by 77.7% in OpenCL and 30% in Vulkan. It also offers 50% more VRAM (48 GB vs 32 GB) and nearly 50% higher memory bandwidth (864 GB/s vs 576 GB/s). Its 99th-percentile standing versus the W7800’s 97th percentile confirms a wide performance gap.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has its own strengths, but they are not reflected in the benchmark wins. It has a higher base clock (1895 MHz vs 1440 MHz) and much higher FP16 throughput (90.50 TFLOPS vs 59.35 TFLOPS), which could benefit specific mixed-precision workloads. It also supports DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, whereas the L20 uses DisplayPort 1.4a. However, none of these advantages translate into benchmark wins in the tests recorded. The W7800’s nearest rivals (RTX A5500, RTX 4500 Ada) are all within 2.2% of its average score, indicating it competes in a lower performance bracket.

For users who prioritize compute density, the L20 is the clear pick. For those who need FP16 performance or newer display outputs and can tolerate lower overall scores, the W7800 is the alternative. The L20 is also a better choice for large datasets, its 48 GB frame buffer is 16 GB larger, and its bandwidth advantage is substantial.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the most decisive result. The NVIDIA L20 scores 274,276 against the AMD’s 154,366, a staggering 77.7% improvement. This is not a marginal win; it suggests the L20’s architecture and driver stack are far more efficient in OpenCL compute tasks. Notably, the L20’s FP32 rate (59.35 TFLOPS) is 31% higher than the W7800’s (45.25 TFLOPS), which likely contributes to this gap.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the L20 wins again, but by a smaller margin: 228,018 vs 175,422, a 30% delta. Vulkan tends to favor AMD’s RDNA architecture in some gaming scenarios, but here the L20’s higher shading unit count (11,776 vs 4,480) and texture rate (927.4 GTexel/s vs 707.0 GTexel/s) appear decisive. The pixel rates are nearly identical (322.6 vs 323.2 GPixel/s), so the difference comes from compute and texture throughput.

The combined wins give the L20 a 2-0 record in this head-to-head. There is no benchmark in the data where the W7800 outperforms the L20. The W7800’s FP16 rating is higher (90.50 TFLOPS vs 59.35 TFLOPS), but the L20’s FP16 is listed as 1:1 with FP32, meaning it maintains full rate, while the W7800’s 2:1 ratio indicates it halves FP32 throughput when doing FP16. This architectural difference explains why the L20’s raw compute stays competitive despite lower nominal FP16.

Specification Differences

The memory subsystem is the most significant differentiator. The L20 has 48 GB GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 864 GB/s bandwidth. The W7800 has 32 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, capped at 576 GB/s. Both use 18 Gbps effective memory clocks, but the wider bus gives the L20 a 50% bandwidth advantage.

Clock speeds differ notably. The W7800 has a higher base clock (1895 MHz vs 1440 MHz) and a nearly identical boost clock (2525 MHz vs 2520 MHz). However, the L20 compensates with far more execution units: 11,776 shading units vs 4,480, 368 TMUs vs 280, and 92 RT cores vs 70. Both have 128 ROPs. The L20 also has 368 Tensor Cores, while the W7800 has none listed.

Power and physical dimensions vary. The L20 is rated at 275 W TDP with a single 16-pin connector; the W7800 draws 260 W via two 8-pin connectors. Both suggest a 600 W PSU and are dual-slot. The L20 is shorter (267 mm vs 280 mm) and slightly taller (111 mm vs 110 mm), while the W7800 has a specified width of 40 mm. Display outputs differ: the L20 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the W7800 offers 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1.

The L20’s launch date is later (2023-11-15 vs 2023-04-12), and it has a defined predecessor (Server Ampere) and successor (Server Hopper). The W7800’s predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, with no successor listed. The W7800 has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD; the L20 has no MSRP provided.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on TSMC’s 5 nm node, but their architectures diverge sharply. The NVIDIA L20 uses the AD102 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the Server Ada (Lxx) generation. It integrates 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, yielding a density of 125.3 million transistors per mm². The architecture includes 92 RT cores and 368 Tensor Cores, which are absent on the AMD side.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Plum Bonito. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. Its die is smaller at 529 mm² with 57,700 million transistors, resulting in a lower density of 109.1 million per mm². The W7800 has 70 RT cores and no tensor cores, reflecting a different compute philosophy focused on shader throughput rather than AI acceleration.

The FP16 implementation highlights a key architectural split. The L20 achieves 59.35 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it does not sacrifice FP32 rate. The W7800 reaches 90.50 TFLOPS FP16 but at a 2:1 ratio, indicating it uses rate doubling to exceed its FP32 peak of 45.25 TFLOPS. For workloads that rely on FP32 precision, the L20 is clearly superior; for FP16-heavy tasks, the W7800 has a nominal advantage, though benchmark results do not reflect it.

Rasterization features are similar: both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The L20’s texture rate (927.4 GTexel/s) is 31% higher than the W7800’s (707.0 GTexel/s), while pixel rates are almost equal (322.6 vs 323.2 GPixel/s). This suggests the L20’s advantage lies in texture-heavy compute, not pixel filling.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA L20 wins in every benchmark category that has data. Its OpenCL advantage (77.7%) makes it the obvious choice for compute-intensive tasks like scientific simulation, machine learning inference, or rendering workloads that rely on OpenCL. Its 48 GB VRAM and 864 GB/s bandwidth are suited for large datasets that would exceed the W7800’s 32 GB capacity. The L20 also leads in FP32 (59.35 vs 45.25 TFLOPS) and texture rate (927.4 vs 707.0 GTexel/s), reinforcing its compute dominance.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has no benchmark wins, but its spec sheet reveals potential strengths. Its higher FP16 throughput (90.50 TFLOPS) could benefit workloads that use half-precision arithmetic, such as certain AI inference or graphics effects. The DisplayPort 2.1 outputs (including one mini-DisplayPort) support newer display standards versus the L20’s DisplayPort 1.4a, making the W7800 better for multi-monitor setups with high refresh rates. Its lower TDP (260 W vs 275 W) and slightly higher base clock (1895 MHz) suggest it may be more efficient at lower utilization, though no efficiency metrics are available.

The W7800’s nearest rivals, the RTX A5500 and RTX 4500 Ada, are within 0.7% of its average score, placing it in a performance band well below the L20. The L20, by contrast, sits between the L40 (11.6% faster) and the PG506-232 (11.6% slower), indicating it occupies a mid-high tier of NVIDIA’s server lineup. For users choosing between these two specific cards, the L20 is the performance pick; the W7800 is only preferable in niche scenarios like FP16-heavy code or when DisplayPort 2.1 is required.