AMD Radeon RX 7800M vs NVIDIA Rubin GPU Comparison

The Verdict

The data shows two fundamentally different products with almost no overlap in purpose or performance class. The AMD Radeon RX 7800M is a mobile graphics solution with a complete set of recorded benchmark results, placing it in the 73rd percentile of all GPUs in the database. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU, by contrast, is a server-class compute accelerator with no recorded benchmark scores, a 50th percentile placeholder, and an average benchmark score of zero. The verdict is straightforward: the RX 7800M is the only one of the two with measurable graphics performance data, while the Rubin GPU is defined by its raw compute specifications rather than any tested results.

For users seeking a mobile GPU with proven DirectX, OpenGL, Vulkan, and compute performance, the RX 7800M delivers. Its recorded benchmarks show strong results across multiple test suites. For users requiring massive memory capacity, enormous bandwidth, and extreme FP32/FP16 throughput for server workloads, the Rubin GPU is the only option, but its performance claims are entirely specification-based, not benchmark-verified. The two products should not be considered substitutes for one another under any recorded metric.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 7800M uses the Navi 32 chip built on RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed Wheat Nas, and belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 7000M) generation. The process node is 5 nm, fabricated by TSMC, with a transistor count of 28,100 million on a 346 mm² die. The transistor density measures 81.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA Rubin GPU uses the GR100 chip on the Rubin architecture, belongs to the Server Rubin (Rxx) generation, and is fabricated on a 3 nm TSMC process. It carries 336,000 million transistors on a 1456 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 230.8 million per mm².

The Rubin GPU is a server module with an SXM Module slot width, no display outputs, and PCIe 6.0 x16 bus interface. The RX 7800M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with portable device dependent display outputs and PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface. The Rubin GPU lists no DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan API support, while the RX 7800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin GPU has 896 tensor cores and no RT core count listed; the RX 7800M has 60 RT cores and no tensor cores listed.

The Rubin GPU uses HBM4 memory with a 16384-bit bus and 22.1 TB/s bandwidth. The RX 7800M uses GDDR6 with a 192-bit bus and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Rubin GPU has 28672 shading units, 896 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The RX 7800M has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The clock structures also differ: the RX 7800M has base, boost, and game clocks of 1295 MHz, 2335 MHz, and 2145 MHz respectively, while the Rubin GPU has a 700 MHz base clock and 2267 MHz boost clock with no game clock defined.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table contains no entries. The recorded wins for each product are both zero. This means no direct comparative benchmark results exist between the AMD Radeon RX 7800M and the NVIDIA Rubin GPU in the database.

However, the RX 7800M has its own benchmark suite. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 2994. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 120778. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 126668. Passmark results include 17613 in G3D, 9342 in GPU Compute, 892 in G2D, 176 in DirectX 11, 174 in DirectX 9, 99 in DirectX 10, and 89 in DirectX 12. The average benchmark score across all tests is 27883.

The nearest rivals for the RX 7800M provide context. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 has an average score of 27839, which is 0.2% lower than the RX 7800M. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X scores 27973 on average, 0.3% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti averages 28020, 0.5% higher. The AMD FirePro S7150 averages 28117, 0.8% higher. The RX 7800M sits slightly below these four rivals in average score, with the smallest deficit being 0.2% and the largest being 0.8%.

The Rubin GPU has no benchmarks and no nearest rivals listed. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile is listed as 50, which appears to be a placeholder rather than a measured position. The data confirms that the Rubin GPU cannot be compared numerically to any other product in the database at this time.

Specification Differences

The two products differ across nearly every recorded specification field.

Process node: RX 7800M uses 5 nm; Rubin GPU uses 3 nm.

Transistors: RX 7800M has 28,100 million; Rubin GPU has 336,000 million.

Die size: RX 7800M measures 346 mm²; Rubin GPU measures 1456 mm².

Transistor density: RX 7800M has 81.2 million per mm²; Rubin GPU has 230.8 million per mm².

Base clock: RX 7800M runs at 1295 MHz; Rubin GPU runs at 700 MHz.

Boost clock: RX 7800M reaches 2335 MHz; Rubin GPU reaches 2267 MHz.

Game clock: RX 7800M has 2145 MHz; Rubin GPU has no game clock listed.

Memory size: RX 7800M has 12 GB; Rubin GPU has 288 GB.

Memory type: RX 7800M uses GDDR6; Rubin GPU uses HBM4.

Memory bus width: RX 7800M has 192 bit; Rubin GPU has 16384 bit.

Memory bandwidth: RX 7800M delivers 432.0 GB/s; Rubin GPU delivers 22.1 TB/s.

Shading units: RX 7800M has 3840; Rubin GPU has 28672.

TMUs: RX 7800M has 240; Rubin GPU has 896.

ROPs: RX 7800M has 96; Rubin GPU has 24.

RT cores: RX 7800M has 60; Rubin GPU has none listed.

Tensor cores: RX 7800M has none listed; Rubin GPU has 896.

Pixel rate: RX 7800M achieves 224.2 GPixel/s; Rubin GPU achieves 54.41 GPixel/s.

Texture rate: RX 7800M achieves 560.4 GTexel/s; Rubin GPU achieves 2,031.2 GTexel/s.

FP32 performance: RX 7800M delivers 35.87 TFLOPS; Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS.

FP16 performance: RX 7800M delivers 35.87 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio; Rubin GPU delivers 260.0 TFLOPS at 2:1 ratio.

TDP: RX 7800M is rated at 180 W; Rubin GPU is rated at 2300 W.

Slot width: RX 7800M is IGP; Rubin GPU is SXM Module.

Power connectors: RX 7800M has none; Rubin GPU has none listed.

Suggested PSU: RX 7800M has none listed; Rubin GPU lists 2700 W.

Bus interface: RX 7800M uses PCIe 4.0 x16; Rubin GPU uses PCIe 6.0 x16.

Display outputs: RX 7800M is portable device dependent; Rubin GPU has no outputs.

API support: RX 7800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4; Rubin GPU lists N/A for all three.

Release date: RX 7800M released 2024-09-10; Rubin GPU release date is 2025-12-31.

Predecessor: RX 7800M follows Polaris Mobile; Rubin GPU follows Server Blackwell.

Production status: both are listed as Active.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better benchmark results in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 7800M has recorded benchmark scores across multiple tests, including 2994 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 120778 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 17613 in Passmark G3D. The NVIDIA Rubin GPU has no recorded benchmarks, with an average benchmark score of 0.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The RX 7800M has 12 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Rubin GPU has 288 GB of HBM4 memory on a 16384-bit bus with 22.1 TB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their FP32 compute performances compare?

A: The RX 7800M delivers 35.87 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The Rubin GPU delivers 130.0 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is substantially higher.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The RX 7800M has a TDP of 180 W and no power connectors listed. The Rubin GPU has a TDP of 2300 W and lists a suggested PSU of 2700 W.

Q: Which GPU supports graphics APIs?

A: The RX 7800M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Rubin GPU lists N/A for DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan, and has no display outputs.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to the RX 7800M in average benchmark score?

A: The nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (0.2% lower score), AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (0.3% higher), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (0.5% higher), and AMD FirePro S7150 (0.8% higher).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 7800M wins in every category where recorded benchmark data exists. Its 73rd percentile ranking across all GPUs in the database reflects measurable performance in graphics workloads. The Geekbench Vulkan score of 126668 and OpenCL score of 120778 indicate strong general compute capability. The Passmark G3D score of 17613 shows solid DirectX-era rasterization performance. The RX 7800M also has a higher pixel rate at 224.2 GPixel/s compared to the Rubin GPU's 54.41 GPixel/s, which suggests it is better suited for traditional graphics rendering tasks. Its ROP count of 96 versus the Rubin GPU's 24 reinforces this advantage in pixel output.

The RX 7800M wins on power efficiency characteristics as well. Its TDP of 180 W is drastically lower than the Rubin GPU's 2300 W. It also supports a full graphics API stack with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it functional for consumer graphics applications. The Rubin GPU has no API support listed and no display outputs, confirming it is not designed for graphics rendering.

The NVIDIA Rubin GPU wins in raw compute specifications. Its FP32 throughput of 130.0 TFLOPS is about 3.6 times the RX 7800M's 35.87 TFLOPS. Its FP16 throughput of 260.0 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio is over 7 times the RX 7800M's 35.87 TFLOPS at 1:1. The Rubin GPU's texture rate of 2,031.2 GTexel/s is roughly 3.6 times higher than the RX 7800M's 560.4 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 22.1 TB/s is over 51 times higher than the RX 7800M's 432.0 GB/s. The 288 GB memory capacity is 24 times the RX 7800M's 12 GB.

The Rubin GPU also wins on transistor count with 336,000 million versus 28,100 million, die size at 1456 mm² versus 346 mm², transistor density at 230.8 million per mm² versus 81.2 million per mm², shading units at 28672 versus 3840, TMUs at 896 versus 240, and tensor cores at 896 versus zero listed. The Rubin GPU uses a newer 3 nm process versus the RX 7800M's 5 nm process and supports PCIe 6.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16.

For use-case split, the data supports the following: the RX 7800M is the choice for mobile graphics, gaming, and any workload requiring DirectX, OpenGL, or Vulkan support. Its benchmark results confirm functional performance in these areas. The Rubin GPU is the choice for server compute workloads requiring massive memory capacity, extreme bandwidth, high FP16 throughput with tensor cores, and no display output requirement. Its specifications indicate it is built for compute density rather than graphics. The absence of any recorded benchmarks for the Rubin GPU means its actual performance in those server workloads remains unverified in the database.