AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM vs NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM and NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU represent two fundamentally different approaches to graphics hardware, one aimed at low-profile desktop computing and the other embedded in a hybrid gaming console. The recorded specifications show a clear performance hierarchy, but the comparison is not a simple sweep. The RX 7400 OEM leads in raw compute throughput, while the Switch 2 GPU counters with a larger memory pool and a distinct feature set. The database places both products at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they occupy similar mid-tier positions in the overall distribution, yet their architectural priorities diverge sharply.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most immediate gap appears in floating-point performance. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU reaches 4.301 TFLOPS. That puts the AMD part ahead by roughly 83% in single-precision throughput, a substantial lead for any workload that relies on standard shader math. The difference comes from both the shader count and clock behavior. The RX 7400 OEM uses 1792 shading units, compared with 1536 on the Switch 2 GPU, and its boost clock of 1100 MHz trails the NVIDIA part’s 1400 MHz boost. Even with the lower boost frequency, the AMD GPU’s higher shader count and wider execution resources produce the higher FP32 figure.

The FP16 comparison flips the story. The RX 7400 OEM computes FP16 at the same rate as FP32, 7.885 TFLOPS, because it uses a 1:1 ratio. The Switch 2 GPU, however, doubles its FP16 rate to 8.602 TFLOPS using a 2:1 ratio. That makes the NVIDIA part about 9% faster in half-precision workloads. This matters for applications that leverage FP16 tensor operations or machine learning inference, where the Switch 2 GPU’s 48 tensor cores can be engaged. The RX 7400 OEM has no tensor cores listed, so any AI-oriented workload would rely on its general shader units.

Texture and pixel throughput also favor AMD. The RX 7400 OEM processes 123.2 GTexel/s and 70.40 GPixel/s, while the Switch 2 GPU manages 67.20 GTexel/s and 22.40 GPixel/s. The texture rate advantage is roughly 83%, matching the FP32 gap, but the pixel rate difference is far larger. The RX 7400 OEM’s 64 ROPs versus 16 ROPs on the Switch 2 GPU explains the 3.1x gap in pixel throughput. For fill-rate-bound scenes, such as high-resolution rendering with heavy alpha blending or multiple render targets, the AMD card has a decisive edge.

Memory bandwidth tells a different story. The RX 7400 OEM uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 172.8 GB/s. The Switch 2 GPU has 12 GB of LPDDR5X on the same 128-bit bus, but its bandwidth drops to 102.4 GB/s. The AMD solution offers 69% more bandwidth, which helps in texture streaming and high-resolution framebuffer access. The Switch 2 GPU compensates with 50% more capacity, which can reduce swapping in large open-world titles or when holding many assets in memory simultaneously.

Clock behavior also sets these parts apart. The RX 7400 OEM has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost of 1100 MHz, a wide operating range that suggests aggressive power management. The Switch 2 GPU runs at a 561 MHz base and 1400 MHz boost, with a smaller relative spread. The NVIDIA chip’s higher absolute clocks do not overcome its narrower execution width, as shown by the FP32 and texture rate results.

The memory clock difference is notable. The RX 7400 OEM runs its GDDR6 at 1350 MHz, or 10.8 Gbps effective, while the Switch 2 GPU’s LPDDR5X runs at 800 MHz, or 6.4 Gbps effective. The higher effective data rate on the AMD card directly contributes to its bandwidth advantage. This also affects power draw: the RX 7400 OEM has a TDP of 55 W, while the Switch 2 GPU is rated at 40 W. The AMD part consumes more power but delivers higher throughput across most metrics.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM is the stronger pure-rendering GPU. It wins in FP32 compute, texture fill, pixel fill, and memory bandwidth. For traditional gaming workloads, where shading, texturing, and rasterization dominate, the RX 7400 OEM provides a clear performance advantage. The Switch 2 GPU, however, wins in FP16 throughput and memory capacity, and it includes tensor cores that the AMD part lacks. The Switch 2 GPU also consumes less power, rated at 40 W versus 55 W, and its dimensions (272 mm length, 116 mm height, 14 mm width) suggest it is built for a fixed console chassis rather than a standard expansion slot.

The RX 7400 OEM is a single-slot card with one 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, which suits a desktop or OEM system. The Switch 2 GPU has no outputs and no bus interface listed, confirming its role as an embedded console processor. The launch MSRP of 449 USD applies to the Switch 2 GPU, but the RX 7400 OEM has no listed launch MSRP, so direct price comparison is not possible from the recorded data.

Benchmark results indicate that users who prioritize raw rasterization performance, higher bandwidth, and standard desktop compatibility should select the RX 7400 OEM. Users who need FP16 acceleration, larger memory capacity, or lower power consumption within an integrated console design should select the Switch 2 GPU. The two products serve different physical and thermal environments, and the performance gap reflects those design goals.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 7400 OEM wins in scenarios that stress pixel throughput. Its 70.40 GPixel/s rate, driven by 64 ROPs, allows it to handle high-resolution rendering with minimal overhead. Games that use heavy post-processing effects, such as motion blur or depth of field, benefit from this ROP advantage. The higher memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s also helps with large texture sets and rapid data streaming from storage to the GPU.

The RX 7400 OEM wins in standard FP32 compute. Its 7.885 TFLOPS outperforms the Switch 2 GPU’s 4.301 TFLOPS by a wide margin. This matters for physics simulations, particle effects, and any shader code that does not use specialized tensor or ray-tracing paths. The AMD part also has 28 ray-tracing cores, compared with 12 on the Switch 2 GPU, which should improve ray-traced effects even though the database does not provide a direct benchmark score.

The Switch 2 GPU wins in FP16 compute. Its 8.602 TFLOPS FP16 rate exceeds the RX 7400 OEM’s 7.885 TFLOPS, and the presence of 48 tensor cores allows for hardware-accelerated machine learning inference. Applications that use DLSS-style reconstruction or AI-based upscaling, where FP16 math is common, will run better on the NVIDIA part. The RX 7400 OEM has no tensor cores, so it must rely on compute shaders for such tasks.

The Switch 2 GPU wins in memory capacity. Its 12 GB of LPDDR5X is 50% larger than the RX 7400 OEM’s 8 GB GDDR6. This benefits games with large open worlds, high-resolution texture packs, or heavy asset streaming. The lower bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s is a tradeoff, but the extra capacity can prevent performance drops from memory swapping.

The Switch 2 GPU also wins in power efficiency per FP16 operation. Its 40 W TDP produces 8.602 TFLOPS of FP16, while the RX 7400 OEM uses 55 W to produce 7.885 TFLOPS of FP16. The NVIDIA part delivers more half-precision throughput per watt, which matters for battery-powered or thermally constrained devices. In FP32, the RX 7400 OEM is more efficient: 7.885 TFLOPS at 55 W versus 4.301 TFLOPS at 40 W.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM delivers 7.885 TFLOPS of FP32, while the NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU delivers 4.301 TFLOPS. The AMD part is roughly 83% faster in single-precision compute.

Q: Does the Switch 2 GPU have more memory?

A: Yes. The Switch 2 GPU has 12 GB of LPDDR5X, while the RX 7400 OEM has 8 GB of GDDR6. The Switch 2 GPU offers 4 GB more capacity.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 7400 OEM has 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, compared with 102.4 GB/s on the Switch 2 GPU. The AMD part provides about 69% more bandwidth.

Q: Are there any features unique to the Switch 2 GPU?

A: The Switch 2 GPU has 48 tensor cores, which the RX 7400 OEM lacks. It also supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, yielding 8.602 TFLOPS, while the RX 7400 OEM runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with 7.885 TFLOPS.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RX 7400 OEM has a TDP of 55 W, while the Switch 2 GPU has a TDP of 40 W. The AMD part consumes 15 W more power.

Q: Which GPU has more ray-tracing cores?

A: The RX 7400 OEM has 28 ray-tracing cores, while the Switch 2 GPU has 12. The AMD part has more than twice as many RT cores.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and process nodes. The AMD Radeon RX 7400 OEM uses the Navi 33 chip built on TSMC’s 6 nm process, with 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 65.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Switch 2 GPU uses the GA10B chip on Samsung’s 8 nm process, with a die size of 200 mm² and no listed transistor count. The 6 nm node offers higher density and likely better power efficiency per transistor, though the actual transistor count for the NVIDIA chip is unknown.

The architectural generations differ as well. The RX 7400 OEM belongs to the Radeon RX 7000 series using RDNA 3.0, with the codename Hotpink Bonefish. It is part of the Navi III generation, with a predecessor in Navi II and a successor in Navi IV. The Switch 2 GPU uses the Ampere architecture, which is one generation older than RDNA 3.0 in approximate timeline terms. The Switch 2 GPU is classified as a console GPU for Nintendo, with no listed predecessor or successor.

The compute unit layouts differ significantly. The RX 7400 OEM has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. It also includes 28 ray-tracing cores and no tensor cores. The Switch 2 GPU has 1536 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with 12 ray-tracing cores and 48 tensor cores. The AMD part has more TMUs and ROPs by a wide margin, while the NVIDIA part includes dedicated tensor hardware.

Memory architecture also differs. The RX 7400 OEM uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective). The Switch 2 GPU uses 12 GB of LPDDR5X on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 800 MHz (6.4 Gbps effective). The GDDR6 solution provides higher bandwidth, while the LPDDR5X solution offers more capacity at lower power.

The physical design separates the two products. The RX 7400 OEM is a single-slot card measuring 167 mm in length, with one 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and provides display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1a and 3x DisplayPort 2.1. The Switch 2 GPU has no outputs, no power connectors, and no bus interface listed. Its dimensions are 272 mm length, 116 mm height, and 14 mm width. The production status for the Switch 2 GPU is listed as Active, while the RX 7400 OEM has no production status recorded.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The API support is identical, meaning software compatibility is the same across both parts. The release dates differ: the Switch 2 GPU was released on 2025-06-04, while the RX 7400 OEM followed on 2025-08-07. The Switch 2 GPU has a launch MSRP of 449 USD, while the RX 7400 OEM has none listed.

The core clock ranges also differ. The RX 7400 OEM has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost of 1100 MHz. The Switch 2 GPU has a base clock of 561 MHz and a boost of 1400 MHz. The NVIDIA part runs at higher absolute clocks, but the AMD part achieves higher throughput due to its wider execution units. The FP16 ratio difference, 1:1 on AMD versus 2:1 on NVIDIA, reflects the different design priorities for compute versus rendering workloads.