AMD Radeon PRO W7800 vs NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation wins both recorded head-to-head tests, with no wins for the AMD Radeon PRO W7800. The largest margin appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA card scores 311,629 against AMD's 154,366, a difference of 101.9%. This is more than a doubling of raw compute throughput in that workload. The Vulkan test narrows the gap but still favors NVIDIA decisively: 262,845 versus 175,422, a 49.8% advantage.

Context from the nearest-rival data reinforces how significant these margins are. The RTX 6000 Ada's average benchmark score of 287,237 places it 14.4% above the NVIDIA L20 (251,147) and 1.1% above the NVIDIA L40 (284,111), while trailing the AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994) by 9.7% and the NVIDIA L40S (295,763) by 2.9%. The Radeon PRO W7800, by contrast, averages 164,894, which sits within a narrow band of its own nearest rivals: it is 0.2% below the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (165,217), 0.7% below the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094), and 1.5% above the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (162,504). The W7800's closest competitor is essentially the RTX A5500, a card from a previous generation, which tells you where its performance tier sits.

The 101.9% OpenCL delta is not just a matter of one architecture being faster; it reflects a fundamental throughput gap. The RTX 6000 Ada's FP32 compute is rated at 91.06 TFLOPS, exactly double the W7800's 45.25 TFLOPS. That 2:1 ratio in raw FP32 aligns almost perfectly with the 101.9% OpenCL score difference. In Vulkan, the gap narrows to 49.8%, which suggests that AMD's RDNA 3.0 architecture handles graphics-oriented workloads relatively better than pure compute, though it still loses by a wide margin. The data shows that the NVIDIA card's advantage is largest in compute-heavy OpenCL tasks and smaller—but still substantial—in graphics-driven Vulkan tasks.

Another way to read the numbers: the W7800's Vulkan score of 175,422 is closer to the RTX 6000 Ada's OpenCL score of 311,629 than to its own OpenCL score of 154,366. That is a peculiar observation, but it underscores how much the workload matters. For Vulkan, the AMD card performs at roughly 67% of the NVIDIA card's level. For OpenCL, it performs at roughly 50%. The average benchmark score gap—287,237 versus 164,894—equals a 74.2% advantage for NVIDIA, which is consistent with the idea that the W7800 is positioned a full performance tier below.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different design philosophies. The RTX 6000 Ada uses the AD102 chip on the Ada Lovelace architecture, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 125.3 million per square millimeter. The Radeon PRO W7800 uses the Navi 31 chip on RDNA 3.0, also a 5 nm TSMC part, but with 57,700 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, for a density of 109.1 million per square millimeter. NVIDIA's die is larger by 80 mm² and holds 18,600 million more transistors, which explains part of the performance gap.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The RTX 6000 Ada has 18,176 shading units, 568 TMUs, 192 ROPs, 142 RT cores, and 568 tensor cores. The W7800 has 4,480 shading units, 280 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 70 RT cores, with no tensor cores listed. That is a 4.06x difference in shading units, a 2.03x difference in TMUs, a 1.5x difference in ROPs, and a 2.03x difference in RT cores. The NVIDIA card also brings tensor cores, which the AMD card lacks entirely; this matters for any AI or deep-learning workload that can leverage them.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The W7800 has a base clock of 1895 MHz and a boost clock of 2525 MHz, versus the RTX 6000 Ada's 915 MHz base and 2505 MHz boost. The AMD card runs considerably higher at base, and slightly higher at boost. Yet the NVIDIA card still produces 91.06 TFLOPS FP32 versus 45.25 TFLOPS for AMD because of the massive shading-unit advantage. The AMD card's higher clocks partially compensate for fewer cores, but not nearly enough. For FP16, the two are much closer: 91.06 TFLOPS for NVIDIA (1:1 ratio) and 90.50 TFLOPS for AMD (2:1 ratio). This means the AMD card's FP16 throughput is nearly identical to NVIDIA's, which could matter for certain mixed-precision workloads.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The RTX 6000 Ada offers 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, with memory clocked at 2500 MHz (20 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 960.0 GB/s. The W7800 offers 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), yielding 576.0 GB/s. That is a 16 GB capacity difference and a 384 GB/s bandwidth difference, which is a 66.7% bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA. The pixel rate is 481.0 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 323.2 GPixel/s for AMD, and the texture rate is 1,422.8 GTexel/s versus 707.0 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specs also differ. The RTX 6000 Ada has a TDP of 300 W, requires a single 16-pin power connector, and suggests a 700 W PSU. The W7800 has a 260 W TDP, requires two 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 600 W PSU. Both are dual-slot cards. NVIDIA's card is 267 mm long and 112 mm tall; AMD's is 280 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 40 mm wide. The display outputs differ: NVIDIA has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while AMD has 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 in every recorded benchmark. The OpenCL score is 101.9% higher, and the Vulkan score is 49.8% higher. The average benchmark score of 287,237 versus 164,894 places the two cards in different performance classes. The RTX 6000 Ada sits at the 99th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7800 sits at the 97th percentile. That two-percentile gap understates the actual score difference because the percentile scale compresses at the top.

For buyers who need maximum compute throughput, the RTX 6000 Ada is the clear choice. Its FP32 performance is exactly double that of the W7800, and its memory bandwidth is 66.7% higher. The 48 GB VRAM capacity versus 32 GB also provides more headroom for large datasets. The NVIDIA card's tensor cores add capability that the AMD card simply does not have.

The W7800 is not without merit, but its merits are relative to lower-tier rivals. It is effectively tied with the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (delta of -0.2%) and the RTX 4500 Ada Generation (-0.7%), and it beats the A100 PCIe 40 GB by 1.5%. If the choice is between the W7800 and those cards, the data shows a near-tie. But against the RTX 6000 Ada, it loses by a wide margin in both compute and graphics workloads.

The production status also matters: the RTX 6000 Ada is end-of-life, while the W7800 is active. The RTX 6000 Ada's successor is the Blackwell PRO W series, so it is a mature product at the end of its cycle. The W7800 has no successor listed and remains in production. This could affect availability, but it does not change the performance data.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation has an average benchmark score of 287,237, compared to 164,894 for the AMD Radeon PRO W7800, a difference of 74.2%.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 6000 Ada in OpenCL?

A: The RTX 6000 Ada scores 311,629 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 154,366 for the W7800, which is a 101.9% advantage.

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

A: No. The head-to-head data shows two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), and the NVIDIA card wins both. The win count is 2 for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RTX 6000 Ada has 48 GB of GDDR6, while the W7800 has 32 GB. The NVIDIA card also has a wider 384-bit bus versus 256-bit, and higher bandwidth at 960.0 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s.

Q: Does the W7800 have tensor cores?

A: No. The Radeon PRO W7800 does not list tensor cores in its specifications. The RTX 6000 Ada includes 568 tensor cores.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7800 has a boost clock of 2525 MHz, slightly higher than the RTX 6000 Ada's 2505 MHz. The AMD card also has a much higher base clock at 1895 MHz versus 915 MHz.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 6000 Ada Generation wins in every measured category. Its OpenCL advantage of 101.9% makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy applications like scientific simulation, rendering, or any workload that relies on raw FP32 throughput. Its Vulkan advantage of 49.8% still gives it a strong lead in graphics-oriented tasks. The 48 GB memory capacity and 960.0 GB/s bandwidth provide more room for large models or textures, and the 568 tensor cores add AI acceleration capability that the W7800 cannot match.

The Radeon PRO W7800 does not win any head-to-head test, so its "wins" must be framed as relative strengths within its own performance tier. It matches the NVIDIA RTX A5500 within 0.2% and beats the A100 PCIe 40 GB by 1.5%. It also consumes less power (260 W versus 300 W) and has a lower suggested PSU (600 W versus 700 W), which could make it easier to integrate into existing systems. Its DisplayPort 2.1 outputs are newer than the NVIDIA card's DisplayPort 1.4a, which may matter for certain high-refresh or high-resolution display configurations.

For FP16 workloads, the two cards are nearly tied at 91.06 TFLOPS versus 90.50 TFLOPS, so the W7800 is competitive in that specific area. The higher base clock of 1895 MHz also suggests better sustained performance at lower utilization, though the benchmark data does not directly confirm this.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification. The RTX 6000 Ada uses the AD102 chip with 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, while the W7800 uses Navi 31 with 57,700 million transistors on 529 mm². Both are 5 nm TSMC parts, but the NVIDIA chip is physically larger and denser (125.3M transistors per mm² versus 109.1M).

The NVIDIA card has 18,176 shading units, 568 TMUs, 192 ROPs, 142 RT cores, and 568 tensor cores. The AMD card has 4,480 shading units, 280 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 70 RT cores, with no tensor cores. The FP32 performance is 91.06 TFLOPS versus 45.25 TFLOPS, while FP16 is nearly identical at 91.06 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 90.50 TFLOPS (2:1).

Memory differs in size (48 GB versus 32 GB), type (both GDDR6), bus width (384-bit versus 256-bit), clock (2500 MHz versus 2250 MHz), and bandwidth (960.0 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s). The pixel rate is 481.0 GPixel/s versus 323.2 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 1,422.8 GTexel/s versus 707.0 GTexel/s.

Power draw is 300 W versus 260 W, with power connectors of 1x 16-pin versus 2x 8-pin, and suggested PSU of 700 W versus 600 W. Both are dual-slot. The NVIDIA card is 267 mm long and 112 mm tall; the AMD card is 280 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 40 mm wide. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 3x DisplayPort 2.1 plus 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1. Both use PCIe 4.0 x16 and support DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The RTX 6000 Ada launched in December 2022 with a launch MSRP of 6,799 USD and is now end-of-life. The W7800 launched in April 2023 with a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD and is still active. The NVIDIA card's predecessor is Workstation Ampere and its successor is Blackwell PRO W; the AMD card's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega with no successor listed.