GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA L40 and AMD Radeon PRO W7800 are both dual-slot workstation cards built on a 5 nm TSMC process, but they target very different performance tiers. The L40 sits in the 99th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7800 sits in the 97th. The data shows a clear hierarchy: the L40 wins both head-to-head benchmarks decisively, but the W7800 offers a distinct set of trade-offs in memory, power, and display connectivity that may suit specific workflows.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA L40 wins outright on raw compute throughput. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 330,926 against the W7800’s 154,366, a 114.4% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the L40 scores 237,295 versus 175,422, a 35.3% lead. These are not marginal differences; the L40 is in a different performance class. Its average benchmark score of 284,111 places it just 1.1% behind the RTX 6000 Ada Generation and 3.9% behind the L40S, while being 13.1% ahead of the L20. The W7800, by contrast, averages 164,894, which is nearly identical to the RTX A5500 (0.2% behind) and RTX 4500 Ada Generation (0.7% behind).

The AMD card wins where the data shows efficiency and connectivity advantages. It has a lower TDP of 260 W versus the L40’s 300 W, and it uses two 8-pin power connectors instead of a single 16-pin. The W7800 also offers a more modern display output suite: three DisplayPort 2.1 ports and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1, compared to the L40’s four DisplayPort 1.4a ports. For users with DisplayPort 2.1 monitors, the W7800 is the only option here. The L40 has no display output advantage; its 48 GB memory is for compute, not display.

In short, the L40 wins every benchmark that matters for raw compute, while the W7800 wins on power draw, connector flexibility, and display output standards. The choice depends entirely on whether the workload is GPU-bound compute or a mix that values lower power and modern display support.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural lineages. The L40 uses the AD102 chip under the Ada Lovelace architecture, part of the Server Ada generation. The W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip under RDNA 3.0, codenamed Plum Bonito, from the Radeon Pro Navi series.

Both are built on the same 5 nm TSMC process, but the transistor counts diverge significantly. The L40 packs 76,300 million transistors into a 609 mm² die, yielding a density of 125.3 million transistors per mm². The W7800 has 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, for a density of 109.1 million per mm². The L40’s larger die and higher density explain part of its compute advantage.

The L40 uses 142 RT cores and 568 tensor cores, while the W7800 has 70 RT cores and no tensor cores listed. This is a fundamental difference: tensor cores enable AI and deep learning workloads that the W7800 cannot accelerate with dedicated hardware. The L40’s FP32 throughput is 90.52 TFLOPS, exactly double the W7800’s 45.25 TFLOPS. For FP16, the L40 achieves 90.52 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the W7800 reaches 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), nearly identical, but the AMD number comes from a shader-based rate, not dedicated tensor hardware.

Memory architecture also differs. The L40 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W7800 has 32 GB on a 256-bit bus, for 576.0 GB/s. Both use 18 Gbps effective memory speed. The L40’s 50% larger memory capacity and 50% higher bandwidth are direct consequences of the wider bus.

The L40 has more shading units (18,176), TMUs (568), and ROPs (192) than the W7800’s 4,480 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. Pixel rate is 478.1 GPixel/s for the L40 versus 323.2 GPixel/s for the W7800. Texture rate is 1,414.3 GTexel/s versus 707.0 GTexel/s. The L40 doubles or nearly doubles the W7800 in every fill-rate metric.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA L40 has 48 GB of GDDR6, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has 32 GB. The L40 also has a wider 384-bit bus versus the W7800’s 256-bit bus, giving it 864.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 576.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the AMD card support newer display outputs?

A: Yes. The W7800 offers three DisplayPort 2.1 ports and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The L40 only provides four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. If you need DisplayPort 2.1, the W7800 is the only choice.

Q: Are tensor cores present on both cards?

A: No. The L40 has 568 tensor cores, which are dedicated AI acceleration units. The W7800 has no tensor cores listed, meaning it lacks dedicated hardware for AI inference and training tasks.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The L40 averages 284,111 across benchmarks, which is 13.1% higher than the L20 and just 1.1% lower than the RTX 6000 Ada Generation. The W7800 averages 164,894, which is nearly identical to the RTX A5500 (0.2% lower) and RTX 4500 Ada Generation (0.7% lower).

Q: Which card is more power-hungry?

A: The L40 has a 300 W TDP, while the W7800 is rated at 260 W. The L40 also requires a 700 W suggested PSU, whereas the W7800 suggests a 600 W unit. The W7800 uses two 8-pin connectors; the L40 uses one 16-pin.

Q: What is the launch price of the AMD card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD. The NVIDIA L40 does not have a listed launch MSRP in the data.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification except for a few commonalities. Both use 5 nm TSMC process, GDDR6 memory at 18 Gbps effective, PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, dual-slot cooling, and support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The key differences are as follows:

• Chip: AD102 (L40) versus Navi 31 (W7800)
• Architecture: Ada Lovelace versus RDNA 3.0
• Transistors: 76,300 million versus 57,700 million
• Die Size: 609 mm² versus 529 mm²
• Transistor Density: 125.3M / mm² versus 109.1M / mm²
• Base Clock: 735 MHz versus 1895 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2490 MHz versus 2525 MHz
• Memory Size: 48 GB versus 32 GB
• Memory Bus: 384 bit versus 256 bit
• Bandwidth: 864.0 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 18,176 versus 4,480
• TMUs: 568 versus 280
• ROPs: 192 versus 128
• RT Cores: 142 versus 70
• Tensor Cores: 568 versus none
• Pixel Rate: 478.1 GPixel/s versus 323.2 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 1,414.3 GTexel/s versus 707.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 90.52 TFLOPS versus 45.25 TFLOPS
• FP16: 90.52 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 300 W versus 260 W
• Power Connectors: 1x 16-pin versus 2x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 700 W versus 600 W
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 3x DisplayPort 2.1 + 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1
• Dimensions: 267 mm length versus 280 mm length; 111 mm height versus 110 mm height
• Production Status: End-of-life versus Active
• Release Date: 2022-10-12 versus 2023-04-12

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two head-to-head benchmarks available are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Both are decisive wins for the NVIDIA L40.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the L40 scores 330,926 against the W7800’s 154,366. The delta is 114.4%, meaning the L40 is more than double the AMD card’s score. This is the largest gap in any comparison and reflects the L40’s massive advantage in shading units, ROPs, and raw FP32 throughput. The W7800’s score of 154,366 places it right at the level of the RTX A5500 (165,217, just 0.2% higher) and the RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094, 0.7% higher). The L40, meanwhile, sits close to the RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237, only 1.1% lower) and the L40S (295,763, 3.9% lower).

In Geekbench Vulkan, the L40 scores 237,295 versus the W7800’s 175,422. The delta is 35.3%. While the L40 still wins, the gap is smaller than in OpenCL. This suggests the W7800’s RDNA 3.0 architecture handles Vulkan workloads relatively better than OpenCL, but it still trails by a significant margin. The L40’s Vulkan score of 237,295 is still well above the W7800’s OpenCL score of 154,366, which underscores the overall performance hierarchy.

The data shows two wins for the L40 and zero for the W7800. There are no benchmark categories where the AMD card takes the lead. The L40’s average benchmark score of 284,111 is 72.3% higher than the W7800’s 164,894. Even the W7800’s closest rival, the RTX A5500 at 165,217, is only 0.2% ahead of it, while the L40’s closest rival, the RTX 6000 Ada Generation, is 1.1% behind it.

The Verdict

The NVIDIA L40 is the clear performance winner. It doubles the W7800’s OpenCL score and beats it by over a third in Vulkan. It has double the FP32 throughput, 50% more memory, 50% more bandwidth, and dedicated tensor cores for AI workloads. Its 99th percentile ranking and average score of 284,111 put it in the same league as the RTX 6000 Ada Generation and L40S, both of which are within 4% of its performance. The L40 is the card to pick for compute-heavy tasks that can leverage CUDA, tensor cores, or massive memory capacity.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is the practical alternative. It uses 40 W less power, requires a 600 W PSU instead of 700 W, and uses two standard 8-pin connectors instead of a 16-pin. It offers DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, which the L40 lacks entirely. Its performance is competitive with the RTX A5500 and RTX 4500 Ada Generation, which means it is not a slow card, it is just in a different tier than the L40. The W7800 is active in production, while the L40 is end-of-life, which may matter for procurement cycles.

The decision is straightforward: if raw compute performance is the priority, the L40 is the only choice. If lower power draw, standard power connectors, DisplayPort 2.1, and a lower overall system requirement matter more, the W7800 is the sensible pick. The data does not support any scenario where the W7800 outperforms the L40 in compute benchmarks, but it also does not support the L40 for power-sensitive or DisplayPort 2.1-centric builds.