AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 and NVIDIA RTX A4500 occupy overlapping territory in the workstation GPU market, yet the recorded data shows they are not close competitors in compute performance. The W7800 wins both head-to-head benchmarks in the database, sits in the 97th percentile against all measured GPUs versus the A4500's 93rd, and posts an average benchmark score of 164894 against 91671. The interesting question is why the gap is so large, and what the A4500 still brings to the table despite being clearly outgunned in the measured tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests appear in the head-to-head record, but both point the same direction, and the margins are not subtle.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon PRO W7800 scores 154366 while the RTX A4500 manages 141837. That is an 8.8 percent win for AMD, a meaningful but not decisive advantage in a general compute workload. A workstation buyer weighing OpenCL-accelerated applications would notice this, but it hardly disqualifies the NVIDIA card.

Geekbench Vulkan is where the comparison turns lopsided. The W7800 scores 175422 against the A4500's 129980, a 35 percent victory. The W7800's Vulkan result is also notably higher than its own OpenCL score, which raises a question worth investigating: does AMD's RDNA 3.0 driver stack simply extract more from Vulkan-based compute paths than from OpenCL ones, or is this a reflection of NVIDIA's Ampere-generation workstation drivers prioritizing CUDA workloads over cross-platform APIs? The database cannot answer that definitively, but the pattern is consistent with a card whose Vulkan path is its strongest suit.

The aggregate picture confirms the split. The W7800's average benchmark score of 164894 places it within striking distance of the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (165217, just 0.2 percent ahead of the AMD card), the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166094, 0.7 percent ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X (168574, 2.2 percent ahead). It actually beats the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB, which trails it by 1.5 percent. In other words, the W7800 competes in a class of professional cards a full tier above where the A4500 lives.

The A4500's average of 91671 puts it alongside the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (91134, which the desktop card beats by 0.6 percent), the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (92466, 0.9 percent ahead of the A4500), the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (87445, 4.8 percent behind), and the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 (87108, 5.2 percent behind). That rival list tells its own story: the A4500 clusters with mobile variants and previous-generation data-center hardware, not with current workstation flagships.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different technological eras, and the spec sheet reflects it.

The W7800 is built on the Navi 31 die (codename Plum Bonito), using AMD's RDNA 3.0 architecture on TSMC's 5 nm process. It packs 57,700 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The A4500 uses the GA102 die on NVIDIA's Ampere architecture, manufactured on Samsung's 8 nm node. Its 28,300 million transistors spread across a larger 628 mm² die, giving a density of just 45.1M per mm². The density gap, roughly two and a half times in AMD's favor, is the clearest single indicator of the generational divide between these parts.

Clock behavior differs dramatically. The W7800 runs a 1895 MHz base and 2525 MHz boost, while the A4500 is specified at 1050 MHz base and 1650 MHz boost. Combine the W7800's higher frequencies with its design and you get substantially higher theoretical throughput: 45.25 TFLOPS FP32 versus 23.65 TFLOPS, and pixel fill of 323.2 GPixel/s versus 158.4 GPixel/s. Texture throughput favors AMD as well, 707.0 GTexel/s against 369.6 GTexel/s.

The A4500 counters with raw shading unit count: 7168 against the W7800's 4480. It also fields 224 tensor cores, while the W7800's tensor core field is not recorded in the database. The W7800 holds more ray tracing cores (70 versus 56), more ROPs (128 versus 96), though fewer TMUs (280 versus 224).

Memory configurations diverge in philosophy. The W7800 carries 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus at 18 Gbps effective, for 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The A4500 has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a wider 320-bit bus at 16 Gbps effective, reaching 640.0 GB/s. So the NVIDIA card actually wins on bandwidth while AMD wins decisively on capacity. For workloads that fit in 20 GB, bandwidth matters more; for large datasets, the W7800's extra memory is the difference between running and not running.

Half-precision behavior is another notable split: the W7800's FP16 runs at 90.50 TFLOPS in a 2:1 ratio with FP32, while the A4500's FP16 matches its FP32 at 23.65 TFLOPS (1:1). Workloads that lean on FP16 get far more from the AMD card on paper.

Where Each One Wins

The W7800 wins the measured contests, full stop. Both recorded benchmarks, OpenCL by 8.8 percent and Vulkan by 35 percent, go to AMD, and its 97th-percentile standing against all GPUs in the database confirms that this is elite territory. Buyers running Vulkan-sensitive compute, large-memory datasets that exceed 20 GB, or FP16-heavy workloads have a clear candidate. The 32 GB frame buffer is arguably its most practical advantage: no amount of bandwidth compensates for running out of capacity.

The A4500's case rests on factors outside the benchmark scores. Its 200 W TDP is considerably lower than the W7800's 260 W, it needs only a single 8-pin connector versus AMD's two, and its suggested PSU is 550 W against 600 W. It is also slightly shorter at 267 mm versus 280 mm. For constrained workstations, these are real advantages. The presence of 224 tensor cores suggests an edge in workloads built around NVIDIA's AI ecosystem, though the recorded tests do not measure that directly. Its Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3196 has no W7800 counterpart in the database, so DirectX 12 gaming-style performance cannot be compared here.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The Radeon PRO W7800 wins both head-to-head tests: Geekbench OpenCL 154366 to 141837 (8.8 percent) and Geekbench Vulkan 175422 to 129980 (35 percent).

Q: How do their overall standings compare?

A: The W7800 sits in the 97th percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 164894; the A4500 is in the 93rd percentile with an average of 91671.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The W7800, with 32 GB of GDDR6 versus 20 GB on the A4500. However, the A4500 delivers more bandwidth, 640.0 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s, thanks to its wider 320-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient on paper?

A: The A4500 has the lower TDP at 200 W versus 260 W, requires one 8-pin connector instead of two, and specifies a 550 W suggested PSU versus 600 W.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. The W7800 is listed as Active, while the A4500 is listed as End-of-life, with the Workstation Ada line recorded as its successor.

Q: Which rivals are closest to each card?

A: The W7800 tracks the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (within 0.2 percent), RTX 4500 Ada Generation (0.7 percent), and NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (which it beats by 1.5 percent). The A4500 clusters near the RTX A4500 Mobile and Radeon Instinct MI60.

Specification Differences

• Chip / Architecture: Navi 31 on RDNA 3.0 (W7800) versus GA102 on Ampere (A4500)
• Process: TSMC 5 nm, 57,700 million transistors, 529 mm², 109.1M/mm² versus Samsung 8 nm, 28,300 million transistors, 628 mm², 45.1M/mm²
• Clocks: 1895 MHz base / 2525 MHz boost versus 1050 MHz base / 1650 MHz boost
• Memory: 32 GB GDDR6, 256-bit, 576.0 GB/s versus 20 GB GDDR6, 320-bit, 640.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 4480 versus 7168; TMUs 280 versus 224; ROPs 128 versus 96; RT cores 70 versus 56; tensor cores recorded only for the A4500 (224)
• Compute: 45.25 TFLOPS FP32 and 90.50 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) versus 23.65 TFLOPS FP32 and 23.65 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1)
• Fill rates: 323.2 GPixel/s and 707.0 GTexel/s versus 158.4 GPixel/s and 369.6 GTexel/s
• Power: 260 W TDP, 2x 8-pin, 600 W suggested PSU versus 200 W TDP, 1x 8-pin, 550 W suggested PSU
• Outputs: 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a
• Dimensions: 280 mm long, 110 mm tall, 40 mm wide versus 267 mm long, 112 mm tall
• Status: Active versus End-of-life; release dates 2023-04-12 versus 2021-11-22
• Launch MSRP: 2,499 USD for the W7800; no launch MSRP recorded for the A4500

The Verdict

The data leaves little ambiguity about performance. The W7800 wins every recorded head-to-head test, by 8.8 percent in OpenCL and 35 percent in Vulkan, outranks the A4500 by four percentile points against the full GPU database, and competes with cards like the RTX A5500 and RTX 4500 Ada Generation rather than with the A4500's own peer group. It also offers substantially more memory capacity, double the FP32 throughput on paper, and higher fill rates.

The A4500's remaining arguments are operational: a lower TDP, simpler power delivery, slightly shorter physical length, 224 tensor cores, and higher memory bandwidth for workloads that fit within 20 GB. Its end-of-life status is a consideration the database records plainly, with the Workstation Ada generation listed as its successor.

For buyers prioritizing measured compute performance and memory capacity, the W7800 is the stronger card by a wide margin. For tight power or space envelopes where the recorded benchmarks matter less, the A4500 retains a narrower, power-focused case.