Radeon PRO W7900 vs RX 7600M XT

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 7600M XT with Radeon PRO W7900, including specs and performance data.

RX 7600M XT
2023
8 GB GDDR6, 120 Watt
35.23
PRO W7900
2023, $3,999
48 GB GDDR6, 295 Watt
66.19
+87.9%

PRO W7900 outperforms 7600M XT by an impressive 88% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking16726
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data7.44
Power efficiency22.8417.46
ArchitectureRDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)RDNA 3 (2023−2025)
GPU code nameNavi 33Navi 31
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date4 January 2023 (3 years ago)26 May 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$3,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores20486144
Core clock speed1280 MHz1760 MHz
Boost clock speed2469 MHz2495 MHz
Number of transistors13,300 million57.7 billion
Manufacturing process technology6 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt295 Watt
Texture fill rate316.0958.1
Floating-point processing power20.23 TFLOPSno data
ROPs64192
TMUs128384
Ray Tracing Cores3296
L0 Cache512 KB3 MB
L1 Cache512 KB3 MB
L2 Cache2 MB6 MB
L3 Cache32 MB96 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).

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data280 mm
Widthno data3-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 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 GB48 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed2250 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth288.0 GB/s864.0 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1

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 Model6.76.9
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.22.0
Vulkan1.31.4

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.

RX 7600M XT 35.23
PRO W7900 66.19
+87.9%

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.

RX 7600M XT 14737
Samples: 473
PRO W7900 27689
+87.9%
Samples: 86

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 HD116210−220
+81%
1440p60
−45.5%
110−120
4K3360−65
+81.8%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data19.04
1440pno data36.35
4Kno data66.65

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 331 600−650
+81.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 116 210−220
+81%
Hogwarts Legacy 146 270−280
+84.9%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 145 270−280
+86.2%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 120−130 230−240
+82.5%
Counter-Strike 2 317 550−600
+73.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 96 180−190
+87.5%
Far Cry 5 127 230−240
+81.1%
Fortnite 150−160 290−300
+84.7%
Forza Horizon 4 245 450−500
+83.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 111 200−210
+80.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150 260−270
+81.8%
Valorant 210−220 400−450
+83.5%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 120−130 230−240
+82.5%
Counter-Strike 2 164 300−310
+82.9%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 500−550
+79.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 81 150−160
+85.2%
Dota 2 140−150 260−270
+84.4%
Far Cry 5 127 230−240
+81.1%
Fortnite 150−160 290−300
+84.7%
Forza Horizon 4 237 400−450
+68.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 133 240−250
+80.5%
Hogwarts Legacy 85 150−160
+76.5%
Metro Exodus 98 180−190
+83.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150 260−270
+81.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 186 300−310
+61.3%
Valorant 210−220 400−450
+83.5%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 120−130 230−240
+82.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 74 130−140
+75.7%
Dota 2 140−150 260−270
+84.4%
Far Cry 5 120 220−230
+83.3%
Forza Horizon 4 180 300−310
+66.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 65 120−130
+84.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150 260−270
+81.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 105 190−200
+81%
Valorant 210−220 400−450
+83.5%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 290−300
+84.7%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 84 150−160
+78.6%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260 450−500
+80%
Grand Theft Auto V 70 130−140
+85.7%
Metro Exodus 58 100−105
+72.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 300−310
+71.4%
Valorant 250−260 450−500
+79.3%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95 170−180
+82.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 48 90−95
+87.5%
Far Cry 5 102 190−200
+86.3%
Forza Horizon 4 142 260−270
+83.1%
Hogwarts Legacy 43 80−85
+86%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 76 140−150
+84.2%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 90−95 170−180
+82.8%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 21 35−40
+66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 74 130−140
+75.7%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24 40−45
+73.9%
Metro Exodus 35 65−70
+85.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 53 95−100
+79.2%
Valorant 210−220 400−450
+83.5%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60 100−105
+75.4%
Counter-Strike 2 25 45−50
+80%
Cyberpunk 2077 22 40−45
+81.8%
Dota 2 100−110 190−200
+81%
Far Cry 5 51 95−100
+86.3%
Forza Horizon 4 90 160−170
+77.8%
Hogwarts Legacy 23 40−45
+73.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50 85−90
+84.8%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 45−50 80−85
+77.8%

This is how RX 7600M XT and PRO W7900 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7900 is 81% faster in 1080p
  • PRO W7900 is 83% faster in 1440p
  • PRO W7900 is 82% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 35.23 66.19
Recency 4 January 2023 26 May 2023
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 48 GB
Chip lithography 6 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 295 Watt

RX 7600M XT has 59% lower power consumption.

PRO W7900, on the other hand, has a 88% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 months, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 17% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 7600M XT in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 7600M XT is a notebook graphics card while Radeon PRO W7900 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 98 votes

Rate Radeon RX 7600M XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 90 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 7600M XT or Radeon PRO W7900, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.