AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data gives a clear, two-test picture: the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 wins both workloads in the head-to-head, while the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 does not take a single recorded victory. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card posts 154,366 points against 74,179 for the Quadro, a 108.1% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the W7800 scores 175,422 versus 129,564, a 35.4% lead. The wins are not narrow, and they are not workload-specific in the sense that one card wins compute while the other wins graphics. Both results favor AMD by a wide margin.

The practical implication is that for general-purpose GPU compute, which OpenCL measures, the W7800 is in a different performance class. For Vulkan-based rendering and compute tasks, the W7800 still leads, but the gap narrows significantly. The Quadro RTX 6000 remains competitive in Vulkan, where its 129,564 score is within striking distance of the W7800's 175,422, though still 35.4% behind. The data does not support any scenario where the Quadro RTX 6000 wins, so the use-case split is not about which card wins which task, but rather about how much margin the W7800 holds depending on the API.

For users prioritizing raw OpenCL throughput, the W7800 is the only rational choice based on the numbers. For those working in Vulkan-heavy pipelines, the Quadro RTX 6000 is closer, but still loses. The percentile data reinforces this: the W7800 sits at the 97th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro RTX 6000 is at the 94th. The W7800's average benchmark score of 164,894 is 61.9% higher than the Quadro's 101,872. No workload in the database flips the result.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturing generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Plum Bonito, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 uses the TU102 chip on the Turing architecture, from the Quadro Turing generation, built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. It has 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die, for a density of 24.7M per mm².

The memory configurations diverge sharply. The W7800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a wider 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s. So the Quadro has more raw bandwidth per byte, but the W7800 has more total memory capacity, a 33.3% advantage in capacity. Both use GDDR6, and both have the same 260 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU, but the power connectors differ: the W7800 needs 2x 8-pin, the Quadro needs 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin.

The compute pipelines differ in both quantity and type. The W7800 has 4,480 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, with 70 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, with 72 ray tracing cores and 576 tensor cores. The Quadro has more shading units and TMUs, but fewer ROPs. The W7800's clock speeds are higher: 1895 MHz base and 2525 MHz boost versus 1440 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost for the Quadro. Memory clocks also favor AMD: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

The interface and display outputs also differ. The W7800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The W7800 has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1, while the Quadro has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W7800 is still in active production, released in 2023, while the Quadro RTX 6000 is end-of-life, released in 2018. The W7800's predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, while the Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Volta and its successor is Workstation Ampere.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains two tests, and the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 wins both. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the W7800 scores 154,366 against the Quadro RTX 6000's 74,179. The delta is 108.1%, meaning the W7800 more than doubles the Quadro's score. This is the largest gap in the recorded data, and it reflects the W7800's much higher FP32 throughput. The W7800 is rated at 45.25 TFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro is rated at 16.31 TFLOPS, a 2.77x difference, though the benchmark gap is larger still.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the W7800 scores 175,422 and the Quadro scores 129,564. The delta is 35.4%, a substantial but smaller margin than OpenCL. The Quadro's Vulkan score is 74.7% of the W7800's, which shows that the older Turing architecture handles Vulkan workloads relatively better than it handles OpenCL. The W7800's Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL score, while the Quadro's Vulkan score is also higher than its OpenCL score. Both cards improve in Vulkan, but the W7800 improves more in absolute terms.

Looking at the broader database context, the W7800's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A5500 with an average score of 165,217 (0.2% higher than the W7800's 164,894), the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation at 166,094 (0.7% higher), the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB at 162,504 (1.5% lower), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X at 168,574 (2.2% higher). So the W7800 sits in a tight cluster, with its closest competitors all within 2.2% of its average score.

The Quadro RTX 6000's nearest rivals are different. The AMD Radeon RX 7900M averages 97,487 (4.5% lower than the Quadro's 101,872), the AMD Radeon Pro VII averages 97,131 (4.9% lower), the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo averages 106,750 (4.6% higher), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X averages 107,342 (5.1% higher). The Quadro is therefore not only behind the W7800, but also behind several other cards in the database, with only two of its four nearest rivals below it.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in FP32?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is rated at 45.25 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000's 16.31 TFLOPS. The benchmark results confirm this, with the W7800 scoring 154,366 in OpenCL against the Quadro's 74,179.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card have any advantage in tensor core support?

A: Yes. The Quadro RTX 6000 has 576 tensor cores, while the W7800 has no tensor cores listed. This means the Quadro has dedicated hardware for tensor operations, but the recorded benchmarks do not include any tensor-specific tests, so the data does not show a performance impact.

Q: Which card has more memory, and does that affect the benchmark scores?

A: The W7800 has 32 GB of GDDR6, while the Quadro RTX 6000 has 24 GB. That is a 33.3% capacity advantage for AMD. However, the Quadro has higher bandwidth at 672.0 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s. The benchmark scores favor the W7800, but the data does not isolate memory capacity or bandwidth as the cause.

Q: Are both cards compatible with the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The difference is in display outputs: the W7800 supports DisplayPort 2.1, while the Quadro supports DisplayPort 1.4a and adds a USB Type-C output.

Q: Which card is newer and still in production?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 was released in 2023 and is listed as Active in production. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 was released in 2018 and is listed as End-of-life. The W7800 has a successor, while the Quadro's successor is Workstation Ampere.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card across the database?

A: The W7800 has an average benchmark score of 164,894, placing it at the 97th percentile among all GPUs. The Quadro RTX 6000 has an average score of 101,872, placing it at the 94th percentile. The W7800's average is 61.9% higher.

The Verdict

The verdict from the recorded data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 wins both head-to-head benchmarks, and it wins by a large margin in OpenCL and a solid margin in Vulkan. The W7800 also has a higher average benchmark score, a higher percentile rank, a newer process node, more memory, and a still-active production status. The Quadro RTX 6000 has a wider memory bus, higher memory bandwidth, and tensor cores, but none of those advantages translate into a benchmark win in the data.

For compute-heavy workloads measured by OpenCL, the W7800 is the clear choice, with more than double the score of the Quadro. For Vulkan-based tasks, the W7800 still leads by 35.4%, so it remains the better option, just less decisively. The Quadro RTX 6000 may still be relevant for legacy software, given its older architecture and end-of-life status, but the data shows no performance scenario where it outperforms the W7800.

The W7800's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A5500 and RTX 4500 Ada Generation, which are within 0.7% of its average score, meaning it is not the absolute top of its class, but it is competitive. The Quadro RTX 6000 sits below several AMD Radeon Pro cards in its own rival list, including the Pro Vega II Duo and Pro W6600X. Between these two specific cards, the W7800 is the only one with a winning record.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7800 | NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Turing |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 57,700 million | 18,600 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 754 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 109.1M / mm² | 24.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1895 MHz | 1440 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2525 MHz | 1770 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 32 GB | 24 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 672.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4480 | 4608 |

| TMUs | 280 | 288 |

| ROPs | 128 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 70 | 72 |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 576 |

| Pixel Rate | 323.2 GPixel/s | 169.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 707.0 GTexel/s | 509.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 45.25 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) | 32.62 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 260 W | 260 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Dual-slot |

| 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) | Not listed |

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

| Release Date | 2023-04-12 | 2018-08-12 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Quadro Volta |

| Successor | None listed | Workstation Ampere |

| Launch MSRP | 2,499 USD | 6,299 USD |