AMD Radeon PRO W7900 vs AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU Comparison

AMD Radeon PRO W7900 vs AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 and the AMD Ryzen Z2 Go GPU occupy completely separate positions in the graphics hardware landscape. The W7900 is a professional workstation card built on the RDNA 3.0 architecture, with a 94th percentile rank among all GPUs in the database and an average benchmark score of 110,725. The Z2 Go is a low-power embedded GPU using the older RDNA 2.0 architecture, with a 50th percentile rank and no recorded benchmark scores in the database. The data shows a massive performance gulf, but the two products target different workloads and power envelopes.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon PRO W7900 wins in every measurable performance category recorded in the database. Its two benchmark results, Geekbench OpenCL at 84,379 and Geekbench Vulkan at 137,070, establish it as a high-end compute device. The average benchmark score of 110,725 places it above the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (109,617, 1% higher) and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X (107,342, 3.2% higher). It trails the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944, 2.8% lower) and the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395, 3.2% lower) in average score, but the Vulkan result shows the W7900 delivering 137,070 points, which is a clear strength in that API.

The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU has no recorded benchmarks in the database, so its wins cannot be quantified through scores. The data indicates its advantage lies solely in power consumption and physical footprint. With a TDP of 28 W, it draws a fraction of the power of the W7900, which has a TDP of 295 W. The Z2 Go uses no power connectors, while the W7900 requires 2x 8-pin connectors. The Z2 Go also has a smaller die size at 208 mm² compared to 529 mm² for the W7900. For systems where low power draw and compact integration are the priority, the Z2 Go is the only viable option between these two, as the W7900’s power requirements and triple-slot design preclude such uses.

The W7900 wins on memory capacity, bandwidth, and raw compute throughput. The Z2 Go cannot compete in any of these metrics, as its 16 GB of LPDDR5 memory and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth are orders of magnitude below the W7900’s 48 GB of GDDR6 and 864.0 GB/s. The performance split is clear: the W7900 is for demanding workstation tasks, the Z2 Go is for low-power embedded scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs use different architectures from AMD. The W7900 is built on RDNA 3.0, with the chip codename Plum Bonito and the Navi 31 silicon. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The Z2 Go uses RDNA 2.0, with the chip codename Rembrandt+ and the generation designation Console GPU (AMD). This architectural gap explains many of the performance differences.

The manufacturing process differs as well. The W7900 is fabricated on a 5 nm node at TSMC, while the Z2 Go uses a 6 nm node at the same foundry. The transistor counts reflect the scale difference: the W7900 has 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 109.1 million per mm². The Z2 Go has 13,100 million transistors on a 208 mm² die, with a density of 63.0 million per mm². The W7900’s newer process and larger die allow for far more compute resources.

The execution resources differ substantially. The W7900 has 6,144 shading units, 384 texture mapping units, 192 render output units, and 96 ray tracing cores. The Z2 Go has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 12 ray tracing cores. That is an 8x difference in shading units and ray tracing cores, a 8x difference in TMUs, and a 6x difference in ROPs. The W7900 also delivers FP32 performance of 61.32 TFLOPS, while the Z2 Go delivers 4.147 TFLOPS. The W7900’s FP16 performance is 61.32 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the Z2 Go achieves 8.294 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, meaning the Z2 Go’s FP16 throughput is halved relative to its FP32 rate.

Clock speeds show an interesting inversion. The Z2 Go has a higher boost clock at 2700 MHz versus 2495 MHz for the W7900, and a lower base clock at 800 MHz versus 1760 MHz. The Z2 Go’s boost clock is likely a result of its simpler architecture, but the W7900’s much larger resource pool dominates in actual throughput.

Memory architecture also diverges. The W7900 uses 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, with memory clocked at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), yielding 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Z2 Go uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory at 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective), yielding 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The W7900 has 8.4x the memory bandwidth, which is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Physical design differs completely. The W7900 is a triple-slot card, 280 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 51 mm wide. The Z2 Go has no recorded dimensions and no slot width, indicating it is not a standard expansion card. The W7900 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the Z2 Go has no bus interface listed. The Z2 Go’s only display output is 1x USB Type-C, whereas the W7900 provides 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the W7900 and the Z2 Go. The Z2 Go has an empty benchmark array, so no scores exist for it. The W7900 has two recorded tests: Geekbench OpenCL at 84,379 and Geekbench Vulkan at 137,070. These scores cannot be compared to the Z2 Go because the latter has no recorded data.

However, the W7900’s performance can be contextualized through its nearest rivals in the database. Its average benchmark score of 110,725 is 1% above the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (109,617) and 3.2% above the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X (107,342). It is 2.8% below the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944) and 3.2% below the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395). The Vulkan score of 137,070 is notably higher than the OpenCL score of 84,379, a 62.4% increase, suggesting the W7900’s RDNA 3.0 architecture performs particularly well in Vulkan workloads.

The Z2 Go’s 50th percentile rank among all GPUs indicates it sits at the median of all recorded devices, but without benchmark scores, its exact performance level is undefined in the database. The W7900’s 94th percentile places it in the top 6% of all GPUs. This percentile gap is the clearest quantitative comparison available between the two.

The FP32 compute difference is stark: the W7900 delivers 61.32 TFLOPS versus 4.147 TFLOPS for the Z2 Go, a 14.8x advantage. Pixel rate favors the W7900 at 479.0 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s, a 5.5x difference. Texture rate favors the W7900 at 958.1 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s, a 7.4x difference. These ratios show that the W7900 dominates in every throughput metric.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance according to the database?

A: The Radeon PRO W7900 delivers 61.32 TFLOPS FP32 and 61.32 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1). The Ryzen Z2 Go GPU delivers 4.147 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.294 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The W7900 has roughly 14.8x higher FP32 throughput.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each GPU?

A: The W7900 uses 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Z2 Go uses 16 GB of LPDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The W7900 has 8.4x higher memory bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The W7900 has a TDP of 295 W and requires 2x 8-pin power connectors with a suggested power supply of 600 W. The Z2 Go has a TDP of 28 W and uses no power connectors, with no suggested PSU listed.

Q: What is the architectural difference between the two GPUs?

A: The W7900 uses RDNA 3.0 on a 5 nm TSMC process with the Navi 31 chip (Plum Bonito). The Z2 Go uses RDNA 2.0 on a 6 nm TSMC process with the Rembrandt+ chip. The W7900 has 57,700 million transistors on 529 mm²; the Z2 Go has 13,100 million on 208 mm².

Q: Are there any benchmark scores for the Ryzen Z2 Go GPU in the database?

A: No. The Z2 Go has an empty benchmark array with an average score of 0. The W7900 has Geekbench OpenCL at 84,379 and Geekbench Vulkan at 137,070, with an average of 110,725.

Q: How does the W7900 compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The W7900’s average score of 110,725 is 1% above the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (109,617), 3.2% above the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X (107,342), 2.8% below the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944), and 3.2% below the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395).

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 (W7900) versus RDNA 2.0 (Z2 Go)
• Chip: Navi 31 versus Rembrandt+
• Codename: Plum Bonito versus none
• Generation: Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) versus Console GPU (AMD)
• Process node: 5 nm versus 6 nm (both TSMC)
• Transistors: 57,700 million versus 13,100 million
• Die size: 529 mm² versus 208 mm²
• Transistor density: 109.1M / mm² versus 63.0M / mm²
• Base clock: 1760 MHz versus 800 MHz
• Boost clock: 2495 MHz versus 2700 MHz
• Memory clock: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 48 GB versus 16 GB
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus LPDDR5
• Memory bus width: 384 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 864.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s
• Shading units: 6144 versus 768
• TMUs: 384 versus 48
• ROPs: 192 versus 32
• Ray tracing cores: 96 versus 12
• Pixel rate: 479.0 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 958.1 GTexel/s versus 129.6 GTexel/s
• FP32: 61.32 TFLOPS versus 4.147 TFLOPS
• FP16: 61.32 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 8.294 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 295 W versus 28 W
• Slot width: Triple-slot versus none
• Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus none
• Suggested PSU: 600 W versus none
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus none
• Display outputs: 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 versus 1x USB Type-C
• Dimensions: 280 mm x 110 mm x 51 mm versus none recorded
• Release date: 2023-05-25 versus 2024-12-31
• Predecessor: Radeon Pro Vega versus none
• Launch MSRP: 3,999 USD versus none
• Benchmark scores: Geekbench OpenCL 84,379 and Vulkan 137,070 versus none
• Percentile vs all GPUs: 94 versus 50
• Average benchmark score: 110,725 versus 0
• Nearest rivals: four recorded versus none

The shared specifications include manufacturer (AMD), foundry (TSMC), API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), and production status (Active). Both lack tensor cores and game clock data. The W7900 has a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD, while the Z2 Go has no MSRP recorded.