AMD Radeon PRO W7900 vs NVIDIA L40S Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the NVIDIA L40S, which wins both benchmark tests in the head-to-head comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, the L40S scores 330,727 against the Radeon PRO W7900’s 84,379, a delta of 292%. This is not a marginal lead; it represents a near fourfold difference in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload. The Geekbench Vulkan test narrows the gap somewhat, with the L40S at 260,799 versus 137,070, a delta of 90.3%. Even in Vulkan, where the AMD card is comparatively stronger, the NVIDIA part still delivers roughly double the score.

The average benchmark score reinforces the disparity. The L40S averages 295,763 across its recorded tests, while the Radeon PRO W7900 averages 110,725. This places the L40S in the 99th percentile of all GPUs in the database, whereas the W7900 sits in the 94th percentile. The percentile difference might seem modest, but the raw score gap is substantial. When examining the L40S’s nearest rivals, it is 3% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation and 4.1% ahead of the NVIDIA L40, while trailing the AMD Instinct MI300X by 7% and the NVIDIA H200 NVL by 11.7%. The W7900, by contrast, is only 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II and 3.2% ahead of the Radeon Pro W6600X, while sitting 2.8% behind the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile and 3.2% behind the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB.

These rival comparisons matter because they contextualize the head-to-head results. The L40S is competing in a tier where its closest peers are modern data-center accelerators, and it holds its own or leads them. The W7900 is fighting against older workstation and mobile parts, and it barely edges out some of them. The OpenCL result alone shows that for compute-heavy tasks, the L40S is in a different performance class. The Vulkan result, while closer, still leaves no ambiguity about the winner. Benchmark results indicate that any workload leveraging OpenCL or Vulkan will see a substantial performance advantage with the NVIDIA part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA L40S has an average benchmark score of 295,763, compared to the AMD Radeon PRO W7900’s 110,725. The L40S also ranks in the 99th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7900 ranks in the 94th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the OpenCL test?

A: The L40S scores 330,727 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the W7900 scores 84,379. This gives the NVIDIA part a 292% advantage, making it the larger of the two head-to-head wins.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The recorded data shows the L40S winning both the Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan tests. The win count is 2 for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: Both cards feature 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, with 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is also identical at 2250 MHz, with 18 Gbps effective speed.

Q: Are there any differences in API support?

A: No. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API feature sets are identical in the database records.

Q: How does the L40S compare to its closest rival, the RTX 6000 Ada Generation?

A: The L40S has an average score of 295,763, which is 3% higher than the RTX 6000 Ada Generation’s average of 287,237. It is also 4.1% ahead of the NVIDIA L40’s average of 284,111.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains much of the benchmark disparity. The NVIDIA L40S uses the AD102 chip based on the Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 125.3 million per mm². The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 uses the Navi 31 chip based on RDNA 3.0, also fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, for a density of 109.1 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip carries roughly 32% more transistors on a 15% larger die, which gives it a clear resource advantage for compute workloads.

The execution resource counts differ sharply. The L40S has 18,176 shading units, 568 texture mapping units, and 192 ROPs. It also includes 142 RT cores and 568 tensor cores. The W7900 has 6,144 shading units, 384 TMUs, and 192 ROPs, with 96 RT cores and no tensor cores listed in the database. The shading unit count is nearly triple in favor of NVIDIA, and the tensor core presence is a major architectural differentiator for AI and machine learning tasks. The AMD card’s lack of tensor cores means it cannot accelerate matrix math in the same way, which is a critical limitation for modern compute workloads.

Clock speeds tell a slightly different story. The W7900 has a higher base clock at 1760 MHz versus 1110 MHz for the L40S, but the boost clocks are close: 2495 MHz for AMD and 2520 MHz for NVIDIA. The higher base clock on the AMD part does not compensate for the massive difference in execution resources. The pixel rate is nearly identical, with the L40S at 483.8 GPixel/s and the W7900 at 479.0 GPixel/s, because both have 192 ROPs. The texture rate, however, favors NVIDIA heavily: 1,431.4 GTexel/s versus 958.1 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 91.61 TFLOPS for the L40S and 61.32 TFLOPS for the W7900, a 49% advantage for NVIDIA. FP16 throughput follows the same pattern, at 91.61 TFLOPS for NVIDIA and 61.32 TFLOPS for AMD, both at 1:1 ratios.

The process node and foundry are identical, so the architectural efficiency differences come down to design choices rather than manufacturing. NVIDIA’s Ada Lovelace generation is listed as “Server Ada (Lxx)” with a predecessor of Server Ampere and a successor of Server Hopper. AMD’s RDNA 3.0 is part of the “Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series)” with a predecessor of Radeon Pro Vega and no successor listed. These differences in roadmap position suggest the L40S is aimed at the data-center compute segment, while the W7900 is positioned as a workstation part.

Specification Differences

The physical and power specifications diverge noticeably. The L40S has a TDP of 300 W and requires a single 16-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 700 W. The W7900 has a TDP of 295 W, uses two 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 600 W PSU. The power draw is nearly identical, but the connector requirements differ. The L40S is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The W7900 is a triple-slot card measuring 280 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 51 mm in width. The AMD card is physically larger in length and thickness, which may affect chassis compatibility.

Display outputs differ as well. The L40S provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The W7900 provides 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. The AMD card supports a newer DisplayPort standard, but the L40S adds HDMI output. Both use PCIe 4.0 x16 for the bus interface. The production status also differs: the L40S is listed as end-of-life, while the W7900 is active. The release dates are about seven months apart, with the L40S launching on 2022-10-12 and the W7900 on 2023-05-25. The L40S has no launch MSRP recorded, while the W7900 has a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD.

The memory subsystem is identical in every recorded field: 48 GB, GDDR6, 384-bit bus, 864.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 2250 MHz memory clock. This means the memory capacity and bandwidth are not differentiating factors. The compute resources, however, are starkly different, as detailed in the architecture section. The L40S also has a higher transistor count and die size, which correlates with its higher benchmark scores. The W7900’s higher base clock and newer DisplayPort support are the only areas where it has a recorded specification advantage.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA L40S is the superior performer across both recorded benchmarks. It wins the Geekbench OpenCL test by 292% and the Geekbench Vulkan test by 90.3%. The average benchmark score of 295,763 places it in the 99th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7900’s 110,725 average places it in the 94th percentile. For any workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the L40S delivers dramatically higher throughput. The W7900 does not win a single head-to-head test.

The architecture analysis supports this outcome. The L40S has nearly three times the shading units, a dedicated tensor core array, and a higher FP32 throughput of 91.61 TFLOPS versus 61.32 TFLOPS. The W7900’s higher base clock and identical memory bandwidth do not close the gap. The L40S also has a higher transistor density and total transistor count, indicating a more complex and capable silicon design. The only areas where the W7900 has a clear specification advantage are the newer DisplayPort 2.1 outputs and the active production status.

For buyers who prioritize raw compute performance, the L40S is the clear choice. Its nearest rivals are NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation, NVIDIA L40, AMD Instinct MI300X, and NVIDIA H200 NVL, all of which are high-end data-center parts. The W7900’s nearest rivals include the Radeon Pro Vega II, RTX A5500 Mobile, Radeon Pro W6600X, and Tesla V100 SXM2, which are older or lower-tier products. The competitive context alone suggests the L40S is aimed at a higher performance tier. The L40S is end-of-life, which may affect long-term availability, but its performance lead is so large that this is the only practical concern.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA L40S wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. Its OpenCL advantage of 292% is particularly significant for compute-heavy applications such as scientific simulation, rendering, and data processing. The Vulkan advantage of 90.3% matters for graphics workloads and cross-platform compute that leverage Vulkan’s low-level API. The L40S also wins on raw specification metrics: higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, higher texture rate, more shading units, and the presence of tensor cores. For machine learning inference or training, the tensor cores are a decisive feature that the W7900 lacks entirely.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its advantages are confined to non-performance areas. It has a higher base clock of 1760 MHz versus 1110 MHz, which may improve responsiveness in lightly threaded scenarios, but this does not translate into a benchmark victory. It also supports DisplayPort 2.1, which is a newer standard than the L40S’s DisplayPort 1.4a, potentially mattering for future high-refresh-rate displays. The W7900 is an active product with a launch MSRP of 3,999 USD, while the L40S is end-of-life and has no recorded MSRP.

The W7900’s triple-slot design and dual 8-pin connectors may appeal to systems with older power supplies that lack 16-pin connectors. Its shorter height of 110 mm versus 111 mm is negligible. The real takeaway is that the W7900 wins only in niche areas of connectivity and power connector compatibility. For every performance metric that matters, the L40S is ahead. The recorded data shows a 2-0 win count for NVIDIA, and the magnitude of those wins makes the AMD card a difficult recommendation for compute-focused buyers. The W7900 remains viable for display-centric workstation use, but the L40S dominates the compute landscape.