AMD Radeon PRO W7900 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the performance gap between the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile in the recorded benchmarks?

A: In the only direct head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 scores 84,379 against the NVIDIA’s 52,998. That is a 59.2% higher score for the AMD card.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall benchmark percentile rankings?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 sits in the 94th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile sits in the 44th percentile. The average benchmark score for the AMD card is 110,725, while the NVIDIA card averages 8,746.

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

A: For the AMD card, the nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (2.8% lower average score) and the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (3.2% lower). For the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile, the closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 with a 0% delta, followed by the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 at 0.7% higher.

Q: What memory configurations do the two cards use?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 uses 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, delivering 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the production statuses of the two products?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 is listed as Active in production. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile is listed as End-of-life.

Q: What are the power requirements listed for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 has a TDP of 295 W and requires a 600 W suggested PSU with 2x 8-pin power connectors. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile has a TDP of 45 W and uses no external power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 is built on the Navi 31 chip using RDNA 3.0 architecture, with the codename Plum Bonito. It is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile uses the GA106 chip with Ampere architecture and is manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The process node difference is substantial: 5 nm versus 8 nm, which contributes to the efficiency and density gap between the two.

The transistor counts differ enormously. The AMD card packs 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 109.1M per mm². The NVIDIA card has 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die, with a density of 43.5M per mm². The AMD chip is more than twice the physical size and nearly five times the transistor count.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the NVIDIA mobile part uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The AMD card has a triple-slot cooling footprint, whereas the NVIDIA card is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor with no slot width.

The AMD card features 96 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA card includes 14 ray tracing cores and 56 tensor cores, reflecting the different compute priorities of a workstation card versus a mobile consumer part. The AMD card has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The NVIDIA card has 1,792 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 scores 84,379, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile scores 52,998. The delta is 59.2% in favor of AMD. This is the largest single-test gap recorded between the pair, and it is the only test where both cards appear.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The AMD card averages 110,725 across its recorded benchmarks, which places it in the 94th percentile. The NVIDIA card averages 8,746, placing it in the 44th percentile. That is a ratio of roughly 12.7 to 1 in average score. However, note that the NVIDIA card has many more recorded benchmark entries, including PassMark tests, which may pull its average down relative to the AMD card’s two Geekbench tests.

For the AMD card, its nearest rival in the database is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II with an average score of 109,617, just 1% lower. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile scores 113,944, which is 2.8% higher than the W7900, and the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB scores 114,395, 3.2% higher. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X scores 107,342, 3.2% lower. These deltas show that the W7900 sits in a tight competitive cluster among high-end workstation GPUs.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 with an average score of 8,743, a 0% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro P2200 scores 8,686, 0.7% higher. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8,851, 1.2% higher, and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 8,863, 1.3% higher. The mobile card’s performance cluster is far below the workstation class, with all rivals within roughly 2% of its average.

The PassMark sub-scores for the NVIDIA card show a mixed profile. Its highest PassMark result is in DirectX 9 at 152, followed by DirectX 11 at 94 and DirectX 10 at 61. The PassMark G3D score is 11,664, and the GPU compute score is 4,419. The G2D score is 526. These numbers indicate that the mobile card’s strengths are not uniformly distributed across API generations, with older DirectX versions showing relatively better performance.

Specification Differences

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 has a base clock of 1760 MHz and a boost clock of 2495 MHz. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile has a base clock of 1065 MHz and a boost clock of 1343 MHz. The memory clocks also differ: the AMD card runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the NVIDIA runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective.

Memory capacity is 48 GB versus 4 GB. The bus width is 384-bit versus 128-bit. Bandwidth is 864.0 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s. The AMD card has a pixel rate of 479.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 958.1 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA card has a pixel rate of 42.98 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 75.21 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance is 61.32 TFLOPS for the AMD card versus 4.813 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card. Both list FP16 at 1:1 with FP32. The AMD card’s TDP is 295 W, while the NVIDIA card’s TDP is 45 W, a 6.5x difference in power draw.

The AMD card uses a triple-slot design with 2x 8-pin power connectors and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The NVIDIA card is an IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The AMD card has dimensions of 280 mm length, 110 mm height, and 51 mm width. The NVIDIA card has no dimensions listed.

Display outputs differ: the AMD card provides 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The NVIDIA card is listed as portable device dependent, meaning outputs are determined by the host laptop. The AMD card was released on 2023-05-25, while the NVIDIA card was released on 2023-12-31.

The AMD card’s predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, and its launch MSRP is 3,999 USD. The NVIDIA card’s predecessor is the GeForce 20 Mobile and has no launch MSRP listed. The AMD card is Active, the NVIDIA is End-of-life.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear class separation. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 delivers 59.2% higher Geekbench OpenCL performance than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile. Its average benchmark score of 110,725 versus 8,746 places it in the 94th percentile versus the 44th percentile. The AMD card has 12x the memory, 4.5x the bandwidth, and 12.7x the FP32 throughput. It also has 96 ray tracing cores versus 14, and 192 ROPs versus 32.

The NVIDIA card is a low-power mobile part with a 45 W TDP, no external power connectors, and an IGP form factor. It is end-of-life. The AMD card is an active, triple-slot workstation GPU with a 295 W TDP and a 600 W suggested PSU. The database indicates that the AMD card competes with the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile and Tesla V100 SXM2, while the NVIDIA card competes with the GTX 460 v2 and Quadro P2200. These rival clusters confirm that the two cards target entirely different performance tiers.

The NVIDIA card’s tensor cores (56) are its only architectural advantage over the AMD card, which lists none. However, the database does not include any tensor-focused benchmark results for either card. The AMD card’s 96 ray tracing cores far exceed the NVIDIA card’s 14. For workloads represented in the database, the AMD card wins the only direct comparison and has a substantially higher average score.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 wins in every recorded metric that both cards share. It wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by 59.2%. It has higher average benchmark scores, a higher percentile ranking, more memory, more bandwidth, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, more ray tracing cores, and higher pixel and texture rates. It is also the only card with a listed launch MSRP, at 3,999 USD.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile wins in power efficiency per the recorded TDP figures. It draws 45 W versus 295 W, a 6.5x lower power envelope. It also has tensor cores, which the AMD card does not list. Its 56 tensor cores could be relevant for workloads that use them, though the database does not contain benchmark data to confirm this. The mobile card also has a smaller physical footprint, being an IGP with no dimensions listed versus the AMD card’s 280 mm length, 110 mm height, and 51 mm width.

For use-case selection, the data points to the AMD card for desktop workstation tasks that demand high compute throughput, large memory capacity, and broad memory bandwidth. The NVIDIA card suits portable, low-power systems where a 45 W TDP and no external power connectors are required. The NVIDIA card’s PassMark results show its highest relative performance in DirectX 9 (152) and DirectX 11 (94), suggesting legacy API workloads may be its comparative strength. The AMD card’s two Geekbench results (84,379 OpenCL, 137,070 Vulkan) show a strong Vulkan showing, which may indicate better performance in modern cross-platform compute workloads.

The production status difference matters for long-term deployment. The AMD card is Active, while the NVIDIA card is End-of-life. Buyers looking at the database for current procurement would see the AMD card as a viable ongoing product, whereas the NVIDIA mobile part is no longer in production.