AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell dominates the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 in both available head-to-head benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card scores 254,116 against AMD's 154,366, a decisive 64.6% advantage. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: NVIDIA hits 282,631 while AMD manages 175,422, a 61.1% gap. These are not marginal wins; they represent a generational chasm in raw compute throughput.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, NVIDIA's average benchmark score of 182,109 places it in the 98th percentile of all GPUs, while AMD's 164,894 average sits at the 97th percentile. The 10.4% overall score difference is substantial, but the head-to-head deltas show the real story: NVIDIA's lead stretches to over 60% in compute-heavy workloads. Notably, the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA A100 SXM4 80 GB (deltaPct -0.9%), RTX 5000 Ada Generation (-1.4%), and GeForce RTX 4090 D (+2.3%), meaning it trades blows with top-tier accelerators. The Radeon PRO W7800, by contrast, competes more closely with NVIDIA RTX A5500 (-0.2%) and RTX 4500 Ada Generation (-0.7%), cards from older or lower tiers.

The benchmark data shows NVIDIA winning two out of two direct comparisons, with no tests where AMD closes the gap. Even the closest rival comparison for AMD—the RTX A5500 at -0.2%—still places it behind NVIDIA's professional lineup. For the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 9,579.5 further demonstrates strong DirectX 12 performance, a test AMD's card does not have an entry for in the fact pack.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. NVIDIA's RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell uses the GB202 chip built on Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process. It packs 92,200 million transistors across a 750 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 122.9 million per mm². AMD's Radeon PRO W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture (codename Plum Bonito), also on TSMC 5 nm, but with 57,700 million transistors on a smaller 529 mm² die—a density of 109.1 million per mm². NVIDIA's die is 41.8% larger in area and holds 59.8% more transistors, giving it a clear structural advantage.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. NVIDIA offers 48 GB of GDDR7 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 1.34 TB/s of bandwidth. AMD counters with 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 576.0 GB/s. That is a 2.3x bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA and 50% more capacity. Clock speeds tell a different story: AMD runs higher frequencies—base 1895 MHz and boost 2525 MHz versus NVIDIA's 1740 MHz base and 2377 MHz boost. Yet NVIDIA's massive shading unit count (14,080 vs 4,480) and texture mapping units (440 vs 280) overwhelm AMD's clock advantage. NVIDIA also leads in ROPs (160 vs 128) and ray tracing cores (110 vs 70). AMD has no tensor core equivalent listed, while NVIDIA fields 440 tensor cores.

The FP32 compute figures reinforce NVIDIA's lead: 66.94 TFLOPS versus 45.25 TFLOPS, a 47.9% advantage. Interestingly, AMD's FP16 output is 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), exceeding its FP32, while NVIDIA's FP16 is 66.94 TFLOPS (1:1). This means AMD actually wins in FP16 raw throughput—a rare bright spot—though NVIDIA's tensor cores likely handle AI workloads more efficiently. Pixel and texture rates follow NVIDIA: 380.3 GPixel/s and 1,045.9 GTexel/s versus AMD's 323.2 GPixel/s and 707.0 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

For NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, the wins are broad and decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, it beats AMD by 64.6%, indicating superior general-purpose compute. In Vulkan, it leads by 61.1%, showing strength in cross-platform graphics APIs. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 9,579.5 further confirms DirectX 12 excellence. The 48 GB GDDR7 memory with 1.34 TB/s bandwidth makes it the clear choice for large dataset workloads—simulations, AI training, or massive scene rendering where memory capacity and bandwidth are bottlenecks. Its 98th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with nearest rivals like the A100 SXM4 80 GB (-0.9%) and RTX 5000 Ada (-1.4%), places it in elite compute territory.

AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has fewer wins, but they are specific. Its higher boost clock (2525 MHz vs 2377 MHz) and base clock (1895 MHz vs 1740 MHz) suggest better responsiveness in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks. The FP16 throughput of 90.50 TFLOPS exceeds NVIDIA's 66.94 TFLOPS, so workloads that operate in half-precision—certain scientific computing or machine learning inference—may see an advantage. AMD also draws less power: 260 W TDP versus 300 W, with a 600 W suggested PSU versus NVIDIA's 700 W. For systems with power constraints, AMD's lower draw could be a deciding factor. Its 32 GB memory is still substantial, and its 97th percentile ranking means it is no slouch—just clearly a tier below.

The W7800's closest competitors are the RTX A5500 (deltaPct -0.2%) and RTX 4500 Ada (-0.7%), which indicates it performs at a level comparable to NVIDIA's mid-to-upper workstation offerings, not the flagship tier where the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell resides.

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell if your priority is maximum compute performance. The data shows a 64.6% lead in OpenCL and 61.1% in Vulkan over the AMD alternative. Its 48 GB GDDR7 memory with 1.34 TB/s bandwidth is unmatched by the AMD card's 32 GB GDDR6 at 576.0 GB/s. For professionals running large-scale renders, complex simulations, or AI workloads, NVIDIA's 66.94 FP32 TFLOPS and 440 tensor cores make it the superior tool. Its 98th percentile standing, with nearest rivals including the A100 SXM4 series, places it among the fastest workstation GPUs ever tested.

Choose the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 if your workload is specifically FP16-heavy or if power draw matters. The Radeon's 90.50 FP16 TFLOPS exceeds NVIDIA's 66.94, and its 260 W TDP is 40 W lower. For existing AMD-based systems or applications optimized for RDNA architecture, the W7800 offers solid performance—its 97th percentile is respectable—but benchmark results indicate it cannot match NVIDIA's raw throughput. The W7800's nearest rivals are the RTX 4500 Ada and RTX A5500, not the A100-class accelerators that surround the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell.

The verdict is straightforward: the RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell wins on every head-to-head metric in the fact pack. AMD's card wins on power efficiency and FP16 peak, but those advantages do not translate into benchmark victories. If you need the fastest workstation GPU for general compute and graphics, NVIDIA is the data-backed choice.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell averages 182,109 across all benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 averages 164,894—a 10.4% difference.

Q: How much faster is NVIDIA in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: NVIDIA scores 254,116 versus AMD's 154,366, making it 64.6% faster in that specific test.

Q: Does AMD win in any compute metric?

A: Yes. The Radeon PRO W7800 delivers 90.50 FP16 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), exceeding NVIDIA's 66.94 FP16 TFLOPS (1:1). It also has higher base and boost clock speeds.

Q: What memory configurations do they use?

A: NVIDIA uses 48 GB GDDR7 on a 384-bit bus with 1.34 TB/s bandwidth. AMD uses 32 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: NVIDIA's GB202 chip has 92,200 million transistors on a 750 mm² die. AMD's Navi 31 has 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die.

Q: What are their power requirements?

A: NVIDIA has a 300 W TDP with a suggested 700 W PSU. AMD has a 260 W TDP with a suggested 600 W PSU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell | AMD Radeon PRO W7800 |

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

| Chip | GB202 | Navi 31 |

| Architecture | Blackwell 2.0 | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 92,200 million | 57,700 million |

| Die Size | 750 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 122.9M / mm² | 109.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1740 MHz | 1895 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2377 MHz | 2525 MHz |

| Memory Size | 48 GB | 32 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR7 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 1.34 TB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 14080 | 4480 |

| TMUs | 440 | 280 |

| ROPs | 160 | 128 |

| RT Cores | 110 | 70 |

| Tensor Cores | 440 | None listed |

| Pixel Rate | 380.3 GPixel/s | 323.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 1,045.9 GTexel/s | 707.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 66.94 TFLOPS | 45.25 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 66.94 TFLOPS (1:1) | 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 300 W | 260 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 16-pin | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 5.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1b | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 111 mm x 40 mm | 280 mm x 110 mm x 40 mm |

| Release Date | 2025-03-17 | 2023-04-12 |

| Launch MSRP | 5,099 USD | 2,499 USD |