GPU Comparison

NVIDIA L40S vs AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is a confrontation between two very different interpretations of the professional GPU. The L40S, built on Ada Lovelace, dominates the aggregate benchmark scores with a 79.4% higher average (295,763 vs 164,894), while the W7800, using RDNA 3.0, counters with a much lower power draw and a wider display output selection. The data positions the L40S as a compute-heavy behemoth, while the W7800 appears tailored for workstation visualization tasks, though the benchmark suite here only captures a fraction of their respective capabilities.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA L40S wins both recorded head-to-head tests decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the L40S scores 330,727 against 154,366 for the W7800, a delta of 114.2%. The Vulkan gap narrows but remains substantial, with the L40S at 260,799 versus 175,422, a 48.7% advantage. For any workload that stresses raw compute throughput, the L40S is the clear choice based on these figures alone.

However, the W7800 is not without its own logic. Its average benchmark score of 164,894 places it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, which is respectable even if far behind the L40S's 99th percentile. The W7800 draws 260 W, which is 40 W less than the L40S's 300 W, and its suggested PSU requirement of 600 W is 100 W lower. This efficiency profile, combined with its active production status versus the L40S's end-of-life designation, suggests the W7800 is designed for sustained, power-conscious deployment in visualization environments where the L40S's extra compute might be unnecessary.

The data does not support choosing the W7800 for compute-heavy tasks. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (165,217, just 0.2% higher) and the RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094, 0.7% higher), which places it in a mid-range performance tier. The L40S, by contrast, sits near the top of the entire GPU database, within 11.7% of the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891) and 7% ahead of the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994). For users prioritizing raw benchmark scores, the verdict is simple: the L40S is the superior part. For users prioritizing lower power draw, active production support, and a broader display output configuration, the W7800 offers a compelling alternative, albeit with significantly lower compute performance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The L40S uses the AD102 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 76,300 million transistors onto a 609 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 125.3 million per mm². The W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip on RDNA 3.0, also on a 5 nm process at TSMC, but with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 109.1 million per mm². The L40S's larger, denser die gives it a fundamental transistor advantage.

Core counts further separate them. The L40S features 18,176 shading units, 568 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The W7800 has 4,480 shading units, 280 TMUs, and 128 ROPs. This is a massive disparity in raw execution resources, explaining the L40S's compute dominance. The L40S also includes 142 RT cores and 568 tensor cores, while the W7800 offers 70 RT cores and no tensor cores at all. The presence of tensor cores in the L40S suggests a capability for AI-accelerated workloads, a feature entirely absent from the W7800's specification sheet.

Memory architecture differs as well. The L40S carries 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 576.0 GB/s. The L40S's memory subsystem provides 50% more capacity and exactly 50% more bandwidth. Clock speeds are similar, with the L40S boosting to 2520 MHz and the W7800 to 2525 MHz, but the L40S's base clock is much lower at 1110 MHz versus 1895 MHz. The W7800's higher base clock and lower TDP suggest a more conservative power envelope, while the L40S relies on aggressive boosting to achieve its performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the L40S's most lopsided victory. Its score of 330,727 is more than double the W7800's 154,366, a 114.2% delta. This result is consistent with the L40S's 91.61 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is double the W7800's 45.25 TFLOPS. The L40S also leads in texture rate (1,431.4 GTexel/s vs 707.0 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (483.8 GPixel/s vs 323.2 GPixel/s), all of which contribute to OpenCL workloads.

The Vulkan test shows a tighter race, but the L40S still wins with 260,799 versus 175,422, a 48.7% advantage. This narrower gap may reflect Vulkan's ability to better utilize the W7800's architecture, or it could indicate that the W7800's higher base clock (1895 MHz) helps in latency-sensitive tasks. Interestingly, the W7800's FP16 performance is 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which is nearly identical to the L40S's 91.61 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). This suggests that in FP16-heavy workloads, the two cards could be much closer than the OpenCL and Vulkan scores imply, though no head-to-head FP16 benchmark is present in the data.

The L40S's nearest rival, the NVIDIA H200 NVL, scores 334,891, which is only 1.2% higher than the L40S's 330,727 OpenCL score. This places the L40S at the very edge of the highest-performing GPUs. The W7800, in contrast, is bracketed by mid-range professional cards like the RTX A5500 and RTX 4500 Ada Generation, with deltas under 1% in either direction. The data shows the W7800 is competitive within its tier, but that tier is fundamentally below the L40S's.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA L40S has an average benchmark score of 295,763, which is 79.4% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7800's 164,894. The L40S sits in the 99th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7800 sits in the 97th percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The L40S offers 48 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 864.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7800 offers 32 GB on a 256-bit bus, providing 576.0 GB/s. The L40S has 50% more capacity and 50% more bandwidth.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 more power-efficient than the NVIDIA L40S?

A: Yes, based on the data. The W7800 has a TDP of 260 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W, while the L40S has a TDP of 300 W and a suggested PSU of 700 W. The W7800 also has a significantly higher base clock (1895 MHz vs 1110 MHz), suggesting it can maintain performance at lower power draw.

Q: What is the release status of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA L40S is marked as end-of-life, having been released on 2022-10-12, with its predecessor listed as Server Ampere and successor as Server Hopper. The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 is active, released on 2023-04-12, with its predecessor listed as Radeon Pro Vega and no successor listed.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 have tensor cores?

A: No. The specification lists tensor cores as null for the W7800. The NVIDIA L40S has 568 tensor cores, which suggests a capability for AI and machine learning workloads that the W7800 does not have.

Q: How does the display output configuration differ?

A: The L40S has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The W7800 has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 and 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The W7800's DisplayPort 2.1 support is a newer standard than the L40S's DisplayPort 1.4a.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA L40S wins decisively in raw compute benchmarks. It holds a 114.2% lead in OpenCL and a 48.7% lead in Vulkan. Its FP32 performance of 91.61 TFLOPS is double the W7800's 45.25 TFLOPS, and its texture rate of 1,431.4 GTexel/s is also roughly double. For tasks like training machine learning models, processing large datasets, or any compute-heavy simulation, the L40S is the only choice based on this data. The presence of tensor cores and its 99th percentile ranking reinforce this position.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 wins in power efficiency and display connectivity. It draws 260 W versus 300 W, and its suggested PSU is 600 W versus 700 W. Its display outputs use the newer DisplayPort 2.1 standard, with three full-size ports and one mini port, whereas the L40S uses the older DisplayPort 1.4a across three ports plus one HDMI 2.1. For a workstation focused on high-resolution display output, multi-monitor setups, or environments where power draw is a constraint, the W7800 offers practical advantages. Its active production status also means it remains available for new deployments, unlike the end-of-life L40S.

The W7800 also shows a potential edge in FP16 workloads. Its FP16 performance is 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) compared to the L40S's 91.61 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). While the L40S is still nominally ahead, the difference is under 1.2%, which is far smaller than the FP32 gap. This suggests that for select FP16 compute tasks, the W7800 could be nearly competitive while using less power.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across almost every major specification. The L40S has a larger chip (609 mm² vs 529 mm²), more transistors (76,300 million vs 57,700 million), and higher transistor density (125.3M/mm² vs 109.1M/mm²). The L40S's shading units (18,176 vs 4,480), TMUs (568 vs 280), ROPs (192 vs 128), and RT cores (142 vs 70) are all substantially higher. The L40S has 568 tensor cores, while the W7800 has none.

Memory capacity is 48 GB for the L40S versus 32 GB for the W7800, with the L40S using a 384-bit bus versus 256-bit. Bandwidth favors the L40S at 864.0 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s. The L40S has higher pixel rate (483.8 GPixel/s vs 323.2 GPixel/s) and texture rate (1,431.4 GTexel/s vs 707.0 GTexel/s). FP32 performance is 91.61 TFLOPS for the L40S versus 45.25 TFLOPS for the W7800.

Power specifications favor the W7800, with a TDP of 260 W versus 300 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W versus 700 W. The L40S uses a 1x 16-pin power connector, while the W7800 uses 2x 8-pin. Both are dual-slot cards, but the L40S is shorter at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus 280 mm (11 inches), while the W7800 is thinner at 40 mm (1.6 inches) wide versus a null width for the L40S. Both use PCIe 4.0 x16 interfaces. The L40S was released on 2022-10-12 and is end-of-life; the W7800 was released on 2023-04-12 and is active. The W7800 has a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD.