AMD Radeon PRO W7900 vs NVIDIA A10M Comparison

NVIDIA A10M and AMD Radeon PRO W7900 target different corners of the professional GPU market, and the benchmark data reflects a stark split in their strengths. The A10M, a server-focused Ampere part, dominates in the OpenCL workload tested, while the W7900, a current-generation RDNA 3 workstation card, counters with a massive memory and bandwidth advantage, alongside a newer manufacturing process.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA A10M is significantly faster, scoring 135,230 compared to the AMD Radeon PRO W7900's 84,379. This gives the A10M a 60.3% lead in this specific test.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what is the bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 has 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA A10M has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, providing 500.2 GB/s.

Q: What are the process nodes for the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA A10M uses an 8 nm process from Samsung, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 uses a more advanced 5 nm process from TSMC.

Q: Which card has a higher thermal design power (TDP)?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 has a TDP of 295 W, which is considerably higher than the NVIDIA A10M's 150 W. The W7900 also requires a 600 W suggested PSU compared to 450 W for the A10M.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA A10M is marked as End-of-life, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 is listed as Active. The W7900 was released on May 25, 2023, and has a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA A10M ranks in the 96th percentile, which is higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7900's 94th percentile. However, the W7900's average benchmark score of 110,725 includes a strong Vulkan result, whereas the A10M's average is based solely on its single OpenCL score.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from different eras. The NVIDIA A10M is based on the Ampere architecture, specifically the GA102 chip, manufactured by Samsung on an 8 nm process. This is a mature, power-efficient design aimed at data center and server workloads. In contrast, the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 uses the newer RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the Navi 31 chip (codenamed Plum Bonito), built by TSMC on a 5 nm process. This process advantage allows AMD to pack a higher transistor density, 109.1M / mm², compared to NVIDIA's 45.1M / mm², despite having a larger total transistor count of 57,700 million versus 28,300 million.

The core configurations differ significantly. The NVIDIA A10M has more shading units (7,168) and texture mapping units (224) than the W7900's 6,144 shading units and 384 TMUs. However, the AMD card has substantially more render output units (192 vs. 80) and ray tracing cores (96 vs. 56). The A10M also includes 224 tensor cores, a feature absent from the AMD specification. Clock speeds tell a different story, with the W7900 running a much higher base clock of 1760 MHz and boost clock of 2495 MHz, compared to the A10M's 975 MHz base and 1635 MHz boost. The A10M's 8 nm node and lower clocks result in a 150 W TDP, while the W7900's higher performance envelope requires 295 W.

Memory configurations are a major point of divergence. The A10M uses 20 GB of GDDR6 with a 500.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the W7900 offers 48 GB of GDDR6 with a much faster 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The physical design also differs: the A10M is a single-slot card with no display outputs, reflecting its server purpose, whereas the W7900 is a triple-slot card with 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it suitable for workstation use.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisively in favor of the NVIDIA A10M. The A10M scores 135,230, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 scores 84,379. This represents a 60.3% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a massive margin that highlights the efficiency of the Ampere architecture in this compute-oriented workload. The A10M's score places it in the 96th percentile of all GPUs, and it sits alongside rivals like the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218) and the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396), showing it is a top-tier performer in this test.

In contrast, the AMD Radeon PRO W7900's OpenCL score of 84,379 is notably lower. However, the W7900 has a second benchmark result in the data: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 137,070. This Vulkan score is higher than its own OpenCL score and even exceeds the A10M's OpenCL result. The W7900's average benchmark score across both tests is 110,725, with a 94th percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals in this average include the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (109,617) and the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944), showing that when considering multiple APIs, the W7900 is a competitive performer, though its OpenCL showing is a clear weak point.

The head-to-head data shows the A10M winning the only direct comparison, but the W7900's Vulkan strength suggests its overall capability is higher than the OpenCL result alone would indicate. The A10M's 60.3% lead in OpenCL is a dominant single-test victory, yet the W7900's broader API support and higher memory capacity position it differently in the market.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA A10M | AMD Radeon PRO W7900 |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 3.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 28,300 million | 57,700 million |

| Die Size | 628 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 45.1M / mm² | 109.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 975 MHz | 1760 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1635 MHz | 2495 MHz |

| Memory Size | 20 GB | 48 GB |

| Memory Bus | 320 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 500.2 GB/s | 864.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 7168 | 6144 |

| TMUs | 224 | 384 |

| ROPs | 80 | 192 |

| RT Cores | 56 | 96 |

| Tensor Cores | 224 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 130.8 GPixel/s | 479.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 366.2 GTexel/s | 958.1 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 23.44 TFLOPS | 61.32 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 23.44 TFLOPS (1:1) | 61.32 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 150 W | 295 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Triple-slot |

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 600 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 112 mm | 280 mm x 110 mm x 51 mm |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA A10M is the clear winner in raw compute performance as measured by OpenCL. Its 60.3% lead over the W7900 in the Geekbench OpenCL test is substantial, and its 96th percentile ranking confirms it is a high-performance part for compute-heavy tasks. The A10M's lower TDP of 150 W and single-slot design make it more suitable for dense server deployments where space and power are limited. Its lack of display outputs reinforces this server-focused role, where rendering frames is less important than processing data. The A10M also maintains a lead in shading units and tensor cores, making it a strong choice for AI inference and training workloads that rely on those features.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 wins in almost every other category. Its 48 GB of memory is more than double the A10M's 20 GB, and its 864.0 GB/s bandwidth is 72.8% higher, making it superior for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The W7900's higher clock speeds and ROP count translate to a pixel rate of 479.0 GPixel/s, far exceeding the A10M's 130.8 GPixel/s, which is critical for graphics rendering and display output. Its FP32 performance of 61.32 TFLOPS is also 2.6 times higher than the A10M's 23.44 TFLOPS, indicating better raw floating-point throughput for scientific and engineering simulations. The W7900's triple-slot cooler and active production status suggest it is designed for sustained workstation loads, and its display outputs make it a direct choice for professional visualization. The Vulkan score of 137,070 further indicates strong performance in modern graphics APIs, which the A10M cannot match due to its lack of display outputs and server-centric design.