Radeon PRO W7700 vs GeForce RTX 4060

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce RTX 4060 with Radeon PRO W7700, including specs and performance data.

RTX 4060
2023, $299
8 GB GDDR6, 115 Watt
46.57
PRO W7700
2023, $999
16 GB GDDR6, 190 Watt
54.56
+17.2%

PRO W7700 outperforms RTX 4060 by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking8354
Place by popularity9not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation90.7531.50
Power efficiency31.5422.36
ArchitectureAda Lovelace (2022−2024)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)
GPU code nameAD107Navi 32
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date18 May 2023 (3 years ago)13 November 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$299 $999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RTX 4060 has 188% better value for money than PRO W7700.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores30723072
Core clock speed1830 MHz1617 MHz
Boost clock speed2460 MHz2153 MHz
Number of transistors18,900 million28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology5 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt190 Watt
Texture fill rate236.2413.4
Floating-point processing power15.11 TFLOPSno data
ROPs4896
TMUs96192
Tensor Cores96no data
Ray Tracing Cores2448
L0 Cacheno data768 KB
L1 Cache3 MB768 KB
L2 Cache24 MB2 MB
L3 Cacheno data64 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x16
Length240 mm241 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 12-pin1x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed2125 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth272.0 GB/s576.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR++

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a4x DisplayPort 2.1
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.86.9
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.0
Vulkan1.31.4
CUDA8.9-
DLSS+-

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

RTX 4060 46.57
PRO W7700 54.56
+17.2%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

RTX 4060 19483
Samples: 28915
PRO W7700 22825
+17.2%
Samples: 87

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD123140−150
+13.8%
1440p5965−70
+10.2%
4K3740−45
+8.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.43
+65.9%
7.14
1440p5.07
+67%
15.37
4K8.08
+67.6%
24.98
  • RTX 4060 has 66% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RTX 4060 has 67% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RTX 4060 has 68% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 213 240−250
+12.7%
Counter-Strike 2 250−260 290−300
+15.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 139 160−170
+15.1%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 154 180−190
+16.9%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 159 180−190
+13.2%
Battlefield 5 140−150 170−180
+14.9%
Counter-Strike 2 250−260 290−300
+15.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 107 120−130
+12.1%
Far Cry 5 185 210−220
+13.5%
Fortnite 200−210 230−240
+13.9%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190 210−220
+16%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 190−200
+11.8%
Valorant 270−280 300−310
+10.7%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 94 110−120
+17%
Battlefield 5 140−150 170−180
+14.9%
Counter-Strike 2 250−260 290−300
+15.5%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 300−310
+7.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 90 100−105
+11.1%
Far Cry 5 169 190−200
+12.4%
Fortnite 200−210 230−240
+13.9%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190 210−220
+16%
Grand Theft Auto V 155 180−190
+16.1%
Metro Exodus 107 120−130
+12.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 190−200
+11.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 216 250−260
+15.7%
Valorant 270−280 300−310
+10.7%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 140−150 170−180
+14.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 80 90−95
+12.5%
Far Cry 5 159 180−190
+13.2%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190 210−220
+16%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 190−200
+11.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 111 130−140
+17.1%
Valorant 270−280 300−310
+10.7%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 200−210 230−240
+13.9%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 120−130 140−150
+9.4%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 300−350 350−400
+3.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 90 100−105
+11.1%
Metro Exodus 63 70−75
+11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 200−210
+14.3%
Valorant 300−350 350−400
+12.9%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120 130−140
+12.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 48 55−60
+14.6%
Far Cry 5 109 120−130
+10.1%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150 160−170
+12.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 80 90−95
+12.5%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 120−130 150−160
+16.3%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 35−40 45−50
+15.4%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60 65−70
+12.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 89 100−105
+12.4%
Metro Exodus 38 40−45
+5.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 66 75−80
+13.6%
Valorant 280−290 300−310
+5.6%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 75−80 90−95
+16.9%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60 65−70
+12.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 20 21−24
+5%
Far Cry 5 54 60−65
+11.1%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100 110−120
+13.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75 85−90
+16.4%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 65−70 75−80
+11.9%

This is how RTX 4060 and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7700 is 14% faster in 1080p
  • PRO W7700 is 10% faster in 1440p
  • PRO W7700 is 8% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 46.57 54.56
Recency 18 May 2023 13 November 2023
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 16 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 115 Watt 190 Watt

RTX 4060 has 39% lower power consumption.

PRO W7700, on the other hand, has a 17% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 months, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 4060 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 4060 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 30787 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 4060 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 13 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce RTX 4060 or Radeon PRO W7700, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.