AMD Radeon PRO W7900 vs Intel Arc B770 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits the two cards into very different roles. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 is the compute-oriented workstation part. Its benchmark results show two recorded scores: 84,379 in Geekbench OpenCL and 137,070 in Geekbench Vulkan, which combine into an average benchmark score of 110,725. That average places it at the 94th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The Intel Arc B770, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark entries at all. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and its percentile sits at 50. The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results between the two, and neither card holds a recorded win in any direct comparison.

The W7900's wins are therefore measured against its nearest rivals rather than against the B770. In the database, the W7900 sits 1% above the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II in average score, 3.2% above the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X, and it trails the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile by 2.8% and the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB by 3.2%. The B770 has no rival entries, so its position in the database is defined only by its percentile rank and the absence of measured scores. For use-case planning, the W7900 wins wherever compute throughput and memory capacity matter: its 61.32 TFLOPS FP32 rate, its 48 GB of GDDR6, and its 864.0 GB/s bandwidth put it in a different class from the B770's 19.66 TFLOPS, 16 GB, and 512.0 GB/s. The B770 wins wherever power and physical footprint matter, because its 225 W TDP and dual-slot design are lighter than the W7900's 295 W and triple-slot frame.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on different architectures, different chips, and different design goals. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 uses the Navi 31 chip, built on RDNA 3.0, with the codename Plum Bonito. It belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The Intel Arc B770 uses the BMG-G31 chip, built on Xe2-HPG, and belongs to the Battlemage (Arc 7) generation, with its predecessor listed as Alchemist. Both are manufactured at TSMC on a 5 nm process, so the node itself is shared. The transistor counts differ sharply: the W7900 packs 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The B770's transistor count is listed as unknown, but its die size is 368 mm², which is notably smaller than the AMD part.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The W7900 uses 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, reaching 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth with memory clocked at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The B770 uses 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, reaching 512.0 GB/s with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The compute configuration differs by a wide margin. The W7900 has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, 192 ROPs, and 96 ray tracing cores. The B770 has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The AMD card also has no tensor core field, and neither does the Intel card, so both rely on their shader and RT hardware alone.

Clock behavior differs in an interesting way. The B770 has a higher base clock at 2100 MHz versus the W7900's 1760 MHz, but the W7900's boost clock of 2495 MHz is higher than the B770's 2400 MHz. The B770's FP16 throughput of 39.32 TFLOPS is double its FP32 rate of 19.66 TFLOPS, indicating a 2:1 ratio. The W7900 lists FP16 at 61.32 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 performance equals its FP32 performance. Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern: the W7900 reaches 479.0 GPixel/s and 958.1 GTexel/s, while the B770 reaches 307.2 GPixel/s and 614.4 GTexel/s. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API coverage is identical. Display outputs differ: the W7900 provides three DisplayPort 2.1 and one mini-DisplayPort 2.1, while the B770 provides one HDMI 2.1a and three DisplayPort 2.1.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table in the database is empty. There are no recorded direct comparison tests between the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 and the Intel Arc B770, and the wins counter shows 0 for both cards. The analysis must therefore rely on the separately recorded figures for each card and on the W7900's nearest rival comparisons.

The W7900's Geekbench Vulkan score of 137,070 is the strongest single recorded number in this comparison. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 84,379 is lower, which indicates the card's Vulkan driver path performs better than its OpenCL path in the database's measurements. The average benchmark score of 110,725 combines those two results. The B770 has no equivalent numbers, so the database cannot confirm any benchmark advantage for Intel's card. The W7900's FP32 throughput of 61.32 TFLOPS is 3.1 times the B770's 19.66 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput of 61.32 TFLOPS is 1.6 times the B770's 39.32 TFLOPS. Memory bandwidth tells a similar story: 864.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s is a 68.75% advantage for the AMD card. The W7900's pixel rate of 479.0 GPixel/s exceeds the B770's 307.2 GPixel/s by 55.9%, and its texture rate of 958.1 GTexel/s exceeds 614.4 GTexel/s by 55.9% as well, since both ratios derive from the same clock and unit counts.

Against its nearest rivals, the W7900's average score of 110,725 is 1% higher than the Radeon Pro Vega II's 109,617 and 3.2% higher than the Radeon Pro W6600X's 107,342. It falls 2.8% short of the RTX A5500 Mobile's 113,944 and 3.2% short of the Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB's 114,395. These margins are small, which suggests the W7900 sits in a tightly clustered performance band among professional GPUs despite its large memory and compute specifications. The B770 has no rival data, so no such positioning can be established for it.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 has an average benchmark score of 110,725. The Intel Arc B770 has an average benchmark score of 0, with no recorded benchmark entries.

Q: How does the W7900 compare to its nearest rivals in average 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).

Q: What are the memory capacities and bandwidths of the two cards?

A: The W7900 has 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The B770 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do the two cards share the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The W7900's die is 529 mm² with 57,700 million transistors, while the B770's die is 368 mm² with an unknown transistor count.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The B770 has a higher base clock at 2100 MHz versus the W7900's 1760 MHz. The W7900 has a higher boost clock at 2495 MHz versus the B770's 2400 MHz.

Q: What is the FP16 to FP32 ratio for each card?

A: The W7900 lists FP16 at 61.32 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to its FP32 of 61.32 TFLOPS. The B770 lists FP16 at 39.32 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio to its FP32 of 19.66 TFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 uses the Navi 31 chip on RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Plum Bonito codename, while the Intel Arc B770 uses the BMG-G31 chip on Xe2-HPG architecture with no codename listed. The W7900 belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation, and the B770 belongs to the Battlemage (Arc 7) generation with Alchemist as its predecessor.

Process node is identical at 5 nm TSMC for both. Transistor count is 57,700 million for the W7900 and unknown for the B770. Die size is 529 mm² for the W7900 and 368 mm² for the B770, giving the W7900 a transistor density of 109.1M per mm² while the B770 has no density figure. Base clocks are 1760 MHz for the W7900 and 2100 MHz for the B770. Boost clocks are 2495 MHz and 2400 MHz respectively. Memory clocks are 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the W7900 and 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for the B770.

Memory size differs by 32 GB: 48 GB versus 16 GB. Bus width is 384-bit versus 256-bit. Bandwidth is 864.0 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s. Shading units are 6,144 versus 4,096. TMUs are 384 versus 256. ROPs are 192 versus 128. Ray tracing cores are 96 versus 32. Pixel rate is 479.0 GPixel/s versus 307.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 958.1 GTexel/s versus 614.4 GTexel/s. FP32 is 61.32 TFLOPS versus 19.66 TFLOPS. FP16 is 61.32 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 39.32 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 295 W versus 225 W. Slot width is triple-slot versus dual-slot. Power connectors are 2x 8-pin versus 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 600 W versus 550 W. The W7900 is 280 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 51 mm wide; the B770 has no dimensions listed. Display outputs are 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 for the W7900, and 1x HDMI 2.1a plus 3x DisplayPort 2.1 for the B770. Both share PCIe 4.0 x16, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W7900's production status is Active with a release date of 2023-05-25 and a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD. The B770 has no production status, a release date of 2025-12-31, and no launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The database positions the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 as a fully measured, high-percentile workstation card. Its average benchmark score of 110,725, its 94th percentile rank, and its recorded OpenCL and Vulkan results give it a concrete performance profile. The Intel Arc B770 has no recorded benchmarks, no average score, and no rival comparisons, so the database cannot substantiate any performance claim for it. The W7900's specifications dominate the comparison in compute throughput, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, and ray tracing core count. It is the card to select when the workload demands large memory buffers, high FP32 throughput, or maximum bandwidth, as its 48 GB, 864.0 GB/s, and 61.32 TFLOPS exceed the B770's 16 GB, 512.0 GB/s, and 19.66 TFLOPS by wide margins.

The B770's advantages are narrower but real. It draws 225 W versus 295 W, it occupies a dual-slot footprint versus triple-slot, it needs a 550 W PSU versus 600 W, and its base clock is higher at 2100 MHz. It also offers an HDMI 2.1a output, which the W7900 lacks. For installations where power draw, chassis space, or display connectivity priority favors a slimmer card, the B770 has a specification-level argument. Its FP16 rate of 39.32 TFLOPS, while below the W7900's 61.32 TFLOPS, is still double its own FP32 rate, which indicates a design aimed at workloads that can use packed math. However, with no benchmark scores in the database, the B770's actual performance cannot be verified against the W7900's recorded results. The data supports the W7900 as the higher-performing card and the B770 as the lower-power, smaller alternative.