AMD Radeon PRO W7900 vs AMD Radeon RX 7600M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 records an average benchmark score of 110,725, while the AMD Radeon RX 7600M scores 63,775. This places the W7900 at the 94th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 89th percentile for the RX 7600M.

Q: How do their Geekbench OpenCL scores compare?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7900 scores 84,379 against 63,775 for the RX 7600M. This is a 32.3% advantage for the W7900, and it is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded between the two.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card according to the database?

A: For the W7900, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (average score 109,617, only 1% behind). The RX 7600M's closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP (63,830, a 0.1% gap). The W7900 also sits 2.8% behind the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile, while the RX 7600M trails the AMD Radeon Pro WX 9100 by 0.7%.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan versions?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 in the database. Their API feature sets match, so software compatibility at that level is identical.

Q: What is the memory size difference?

A: The W7900 has 48 GB of GDDR6 across a 384-bit bus, delivering 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7600M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 256.0 GB/s. The W7900 offers six times the capacity and more than three times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card was released earlier?

A: The RX 7600M launched on 2023-01-03, while the W7900 launched on 2023-05-25. The mobile part preceded the workstation part by several months.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the RDNA 3.0 architecture, but they are built on different chips and process nodes. The W7900 uses the Navi 31 chip (codename Plum Bonito) fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process. In contrast, the RX 7600M uses the Navi 33 chip (codename Hotpink Bonefish) on a 6 nm node. This process gap contributes to a substantial difference in transistor counts: the W7900 packs 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, while the RX 7600M has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. Consequently, the transistor density is 109.1M per mm² for the W7900 versus 65.2M per mm² for the RX 7600M.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The W7900 features 6,144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, and 192 ROPs, alongside 96 ray tracing cores. The RX 7600M has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores. That is a 3.4x difference in shading units and a 3.4x difference in RT cores. Neither card has tensor cores listed, so AI acceleration relies on the standard shader and RT hardware.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The W7900 uses a 384-bit memory bus with 48 GB of GDDR6 at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), yielding 864.0 GB/s. The RX 7600M uses a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6 at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), yielding 256.0 GB/s. The W7900's bandwidth advantage is 3.375x, which directly impacts high-resolution texture streaming and large dataset handling.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The W7900 has a base clock of 1760 MHz and a boost of 2495 MHz, with no separate game clock. The RX 7600M has a lower base of 1500 MHz, a boost of 2410 MHz, and an explicit game clock of 2070 MHz. While the W7900 boosts higher, the RX 7600M's game clock indicates sustained performance in gaming workloads. The power envelope differs greatly: the W7900 is rated at 295 W TDP with a triple-slot cooler and dual 8-pin connectors, while the RX 7600M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) at 90 W TDP with no power connectors. The W7900 requires a 600 W suggested PSU; the RX 7600M has no such requirement listed.

The W7900 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi generation (Navi III Series), positioning it as a workstation product. The RX 7600M belongs to the Radeon RX 7000 series (specifically Navi Mobile, RX 7000M), targeting laptops. Their display outputs reflect this: the W7900 has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1, while the RX 7600M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." Physical dimensions also differ, with the W7900 measuring 280 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 51 mm in width, while the RX 7600M has no recorded dimensions, consistent with its IGP form factor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the W7900 scores 84,379 against the RX 7600M's 63,775, a 32.3% lead for the workstation card. This is a decisive win, but it is also the only direct comparison available, so the analysis rests on that single data point.

Interpreting the score, a 32.3% advantage in OpenCL is substantial. OpenCL performance often scales with raw compute throughput, and the W7900's FP32 rating of 61.32 TFLOPS versus 17.27 TFLOPS for the RX 7600M explains a large part of the gap. The W7900 also has 6.1x the memory bandwidth, which matters for memory-bound OpenCL workloads. However, the RX 7600M's FP16 performance of 34.55 TFLOPS exceeds its FP32 figure due to a 2:1 ratio, whereas the W7900 offers FP16 at 1:1 (61.32 TFLOPS). For FP16-heavy tasks, the RX 7600M's efficiency per watt might be interesting, but the raw FP16 throughput still favors the W7900.

The W7900's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944 average score, 2.8% higher) and the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395, 3.2% higher). This places the W7900 just below those NVIDIA parts in average score, despite its 32.3% head-to-head margin over the RX 7600M. The RX 7600M, meanwhile, sits within 0.7% of its closest rivals (RX 9060 XT LP, CMP 30HX, Pro Vega 56, Pro WX 9100), indicating that its average score is tightly clustered with mid-range competitors.

The wins tally is 1 for the W7900 and 0 for the RX 7600M. No Vulkan benchmark was recorded for the RX 7600M, so the W7900's Geekbench Vulkan score of 137,070 stands alone. That Vulkan score is 62.3% higher than its own OpenCL score, suggesting the W7900 scales better in Vulkan workloads, but without a comparable RX 7600M Vulkan result, a direct head-to-head in Vulkan is not possible.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7900 | AMD Radeon RX 7600M |

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

| Chip | Navi 31 | Navi 33 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 57,700 million | 13,300 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 204 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 109.1M / mm² | 65.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1760 MHz | 1500 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2495 MHz | 2410 MHz |

| Game Clock | None listed | 2070 MHz |

| Memory Size | 48 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 864.0 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 6144 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 384 | 112 |

| ROPs | 192 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 96 | 28 |

| Pixel Rate | 479.0 GPixel/s | 154.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 958.1 GTexel/s | 269.9 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 61.32 TFLOPS | 17.27 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 61.32 TFLOPS (1:1) | 34.55 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 295 W | 90 W |

| Slot Width | Triple-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | None listed |

| Display Outputs | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 280 mm x 110 mm x 51 mm | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2023-05-25 | 2023-01-03 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Polaris Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | 3,999 USD | Not listed |

The table highlights that the W7900 wins on every raw compute and memory metric. The RX 7600M's only advantages are a lower TDP (90 W versus 295 W), an IGP form factor, and no external power requirement. Its FP16 ratio of 2:1 means it processes half-precision at double the FP32 rate, which the W7900 does not do (1:1 ratio), but the W7900's absolute FP16 figure is still 1.78x higher.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 is the choice for compute-heavy, memory-intensive workstation tasks, while the AMD Radeon RX 7600M is suited for power-constrained mobile deployments. The 32.3% OpenCL lead for the W7900 is decisive, and its 48 GB memory capacity is in a different class from the RX 7600M's 8 GB. The W7900's 94th percentile ranking versus the RX 7600M's 89th percentile reinforces this hierarchy.

However, the RX 7600M is not without merit. Its 90 W TDP means it can operate in thin-and-light laptops, whereas the W7900 requires a triple-slot cooler, dual 8-pin power, and a 600 W PSU. The RX 7600M's game clock of 2070 MHz suggests it sustains performance in gaming scenarios, and its FP16 throughput of 34.55 TFLOPS is respectable for a mobile part. The launch MSRP of 3,999 USD for the W7900 (stated once here) reflects its workstation positioning, but no comparable price exists for the RX 7600M in the database.

For a desktop workstation with no power constraints, the W7900 is the obvious pick based on the recorded data. For a laptop requiring an IGP with no external power, the RX 7600M is the only viable option of the two. The choice is not about value; it is about physical and thermal requirements.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon PRO W7900 wins in:

• Raw compute: 61.32 TFLOPS FP32 versus 17.27 TFLOPS, a 3.55x advantage.
• Memory capacity: 48 GB versus 8 GB, critical for large datasets.
• Memory bandwidth: 864.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s, a 3.375x lead.
• Pixel throughput: 479.0 GPixel/s versus 154.2 GPixel/s, a 3.1x margin.
• Texture throughput: 958.1 GTexel/s versus 269.9 GTexel/s, a 3.55x margin.
• OpenCL benchmark: 32.3% higher score.
• Percentile ranking: 94th versus 89th.
• Display outputs: dedicated DisplayPort 2.1 ports versus portable-device-dependent outputs.

AMD Radeon RX 7600M wins in:

• Power efficiency: 90 W TDP versus 295 W, meaning it can run without external power connectors.
• Form factor: IGP versus triple-slot, enabling integration into laptops.
• FP16 ratio: 2:1 versus 1:1, meaning half-precision throughput is double its FP32 rate, a feature the W7900 does not offer.
• Game clock: 2070 MHz explicitly listed, indicating sustained gaming performance, while the W7900 has no game clock designation.
• Release timing: launched earlier (2023-01-03 versus 2023-05-25), so it had a longer market presence at the time of this analysis.

The W7900 wins on every performance metric in the database. The RX 7600M wins on power, size, and mobile integration. For workloads that fit within 8 GB of memory and 90 W of power, the RX 7600M is sufficient; for anything beyond that, the W7900's specifications justify its workstation role. The single head-to-head benchmark favors the W7900, and the specification gaps align with that result.