AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM vs NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows no head-to-head benchmark results for this pairing. Neither the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM nor the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has any benchmark scores listed in the database, and the wins counter is zero for both parts. This absence of direct measurements means the comparison must be built entirely from the architectural specifications and derived performance indicators recorded for each GPU.

Both GPUs sit at the 50th percentile against all GPUs in the database, which indicates they occupy a similar overall performance class despite their very different designs. The NVIDIA part carries a higher raw compute specification: its FP32 throughput is recorded at 12.35 TFLOPS, which is roughly 57% higher than the AMD part's 7.885 TFLOPS. Similarly, the NVIDIA GPU's texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s exceeds the AMD GPU's 123.2 GTexel/s by about 57%. In pixel throughput, the NVIDIA part delivers 96.48 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s on the AMD side, a margin of approximately 37%.

The memory bandwidth comparison favors NVIDIA as well. The RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation lists 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the RX 7400 OEM lists 172.8 GB/s. That is a 48% advantage for the NVIDIA part. Both cards have 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, so the bandwidth gap comes entirely from the memory clock: the NVIDIA part runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the AMD part runs at 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective).

Architecture Differences

These are fundamentally different architectures from different manufacturers. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM uses the Navi 33 chip built on RDNA 3.0, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish, part of the Navi III (RX 7000) generation. It is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation uses the AD107 chip built on Ada Lovelace, part of the Ada-MW generation. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 18,900 million transistors on a 159 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 118.9M per mm². The NVIDIA chip packs roughly 42% more transistors into a 22% smaller die, which explains its higher density.

The compute unit configurations differ significantly. The AMD part has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 render output units, and 28 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA part has 3072 shading units, 96 TMUs, 48 ROPs, 24 RT cores, and 96 tensor cores. Notably, the AMD GPU has no tensor core count listed in the database, while the NVIDIA GPU includes 96 tensor cores, a feature absent from the AMD specification. The AMD part has more TMUs and ROPs than the NVIDIA part, but the NVIDIA part has substantially more shading units.

Clock behavior is also distinct. The AMD GPU has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1100 MHz, which are unusually low figures. The NVIDIA GPU has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 2010 MHz. The NVIDIA part's boost clock is nearly double the AMD part's boost clock. This clock advantage compounds with the NVIDIA part's higher shading unit count to produce the large FP32 gap. The AMD part's low clocks keep its power draw at 55 W, while the NVIDIA part draws 50 W, so the NVIDIA GPU achieves its higher performance at a slightly lower power envelope.

The physical form factors differ as well. The AMD card is a single-slot design, 167 mm (6.6 inches) long, requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested 250 W power supply. The NVIDIA part is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the AMD card provides 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1, while the NVIDIA part's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Both GPUs support the same API levels: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The release dates are different, with the AMD part launching on 2025-08-07 and the NVIDIA part launching on 2023-03-20. The AMD part's production status is not listed, while the NVIDIA part is marked Active. The AMD part's predecessor is Navi II and successor is Navi IV, while the NVIDIA part's predecessor is Ampere-MW and successor is Blackwell-MW.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has 12.35 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM has 7.885 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is about 57% higher in this metric.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory capacity?

A: Yes, both have 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. However, the NVIDIA part has 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 172.8 GB/s for the AMD part, due to a higher memory clock (2000 MHz versus 1350 MHz).

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM has a TDP of 55 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and lists a suggested 250 W power supply. The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has a TDP of 50 W, requires no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed.

Q: How do the transistor counts compare between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA AD107 chip contains 18,900 million transistors, while the AMD Navi 33 chip contains 13,300 million transistors. The NVIDIA chip is built on a 5 nm process, while the AMD chip uses a 6 nm process.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM has 28 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation has 24 ray tracing cores. The AMD part has four more RT cores, but the NVIDIA part additionally includes 96 tensor cores, which the AMD part does not list.

Q: What form factor does each GPU use?

A: The AMD card is a single-slot design measuring 167 mm (6.6 inches) in length. The NVIDIA part is an IGP form factor with no listed dimensions. The AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM | NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation |

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

| Chip | Navi 33 | AD107 |

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 18,900 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 159 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 118.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 330 MHz | 1530 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1100 MHz | 2010 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective) | 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 3072 |

| TMUs | 112 | 96 |

| ROPs | 64 | 48 |

| RT Cores | 28 | 24 |

| Tensor Cores | None listed | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 70.40 GPixel/s | 96.48 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 123.2 GTexel/s | 193.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.885 TFLOPS | 12.35 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 7.885 TFLOPS (1:1) | 12.35 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2025-08-07 | 2023-03-20 |

The Verdict

The data indicates the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation is the stronger GPU in raw compute terms. Its FP32 throughput of 12.35 TFLOPS is 57% higher than the AMD part's 7.885 TFLOPS, and its texture rate of 193.0 GTexel/s is similarly ahead. The NVIDIA part also delivers 48% more memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s) and a higher pixel rate (96.48 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s). These advantages come at a slightly lower TDP (50 W versus 55 W) and without requiring any power connectors, making the NVIDIA part the more efficient performer on paper.

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM is not without its own strengths. It has more TMUs (112 versus 96), more ROPs (64 versus 48), and more ray tracing cores (28 versus 24). It also has a broader display output configuration with HDMI 2.1a and DisplayPort 2.1, which the NVIDIA part does not list as fixed outputs. However, the AMD part's significantly lower clock speeds (boost of 1100 MHz versus 2010 MHz) and fewer shading units (1792 versus 3072) place it behind in the primary compute metrics.

The release timeline favors the AMD part, which launched on 2025-08-07 versus the NVIDIA part's 2023-03-20 launch. Both GPUs sit at the same 50th percentile against all GPUs, which suggests they are placed in a similar performance bracket in the database, but the recorded specifications place the NVIDIA part clearly ahead in throughput measures.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM wins in rasterization resource counts. It has 112 TMUs versus 96 on the NVIDIA part, and 64 ROPs versus 48. This gives it a higher fill-rate-oriented configuration in terms of pixel processing units per shading unit, though its lower clocks reduce the practical impact. The AMD part also has 28 ray tracing cores versus 24 on the NVIDIA part, a modest advantage in RT core count. The AMD card's display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1) are explicitly listed, making it the clearer choice for fixed display connectivity. The AMD part is also a single-slot card with a 167 mm length, which is a compact add-in form factor.

The NVIDIA RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation wins in every major throughput metric: FP32 (12.35 TFLOPS versus 7.885 TFLOPS), texture rate (193.0 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s), pixel rate (96.48 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s), and memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s). It also has 3072 shading units versus 1792, and 96 tensor cores versus none listed on the AMD part, making it the only one of the two with tensor core capability. Its boost clock of 2010 MHz is well above the AMD part's 1100 MHz, and its base clock of 1530 MHz exceeds the AMD part's boost clock. The NVIDIA part is also an IGP with no power connectors, which suits embedded deployments where discrete power cabling is unavailable. Its PCIe 4.0 x16 interface doubles the lane count of the AMD part's PCIe 4.0 x8. The NVIDIA part draws 50 W versus 55 W for the AMD part, and it is marked Active in production status, while the AMD part's production status is not listed.