Radeon PRO W7900 vs RX 7700 XT

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 7700 XT with Radeon PRO W7900, including specs and performance data.

RX 7700 XT
2023, $449
12 GB GDDR6, 245 Watt
54.40
PRO W7900
2023, $3,999
48 GB GDDR6, 295 Watt
66.18
+21.7%

PRO W7900 outperforms 7700 XT by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5527
Place by popularity85not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation72.637.42
Power efficiency17.2917.47
ArchitectureRDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)RDNA 3 (2023−2025)
GPU code nameNavi 32Navi 31
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date25 August 2023 (3 years ago)26 May 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 $3,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

RX 7700 XT has 879% better value for money than PRO W7900.

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 cores34566144
Core clock speed1435 MHz1760 MHz
Boost clock speed2544 MHz2495 MHz
Number of transistors28,100 million57.7 billion
Manufacturing process technology5 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)245 Watt295 Watt
Texture fill rate549.5958.1
Floating-point processing power35.17 TFLOPSno data
ROPs96192
TMUs216384
Ray Tracing Cores5496
L0 Cache864 KB3 MB
L1 Cache768 KB3 MB
L2 Cache2 MB6 MB
L3 Cache48 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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length267 mm280 mm
Width2-slot3-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pin2x 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 amount12 GB48 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed2250 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth432.0 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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-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
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 7700 XT 54.40
PRO W7900 66.18
+21.7%

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 7700 XT 22761
Samples: 2957
PRO W7900 27689
+21.7%
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 HD185220−230
+18.9%
1440p102120−130
+17.6%
4K5970−75
+18.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.43
+86.6%
18.18
1440p4.40
+86.8%
33.33
4K7.61
+86.7%
57.13
  • RX 7700 XT has 87% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 7700 XT has 87% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX 7700 XT has 87% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 265 300−310
+13.2%
Counter-Strike 2 351 400−450
+14%
Cyberpunk 2077 193 230−240
+19.2%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 229 270−280
+17.9%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 199 240−250
+20.6%
Battlefield 5 160−170 190−200
+18.8%
Counter-Strike 2 344 400−450
+16.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 158 190−200
+20.3%
Far Cry 5 188 220−230
+17%
Fortnite 240−250 290−300
+18.9%
Forza Horizon 4 278 300−310
+7.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 210−220
+21.4%
Valorant 300−350 350−400
+11.5%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 119 140−150
+17.6%
Battlefield 5 160−170 190−200
+18.8%
Counter-Strike 2 243 290−300
+19.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 300−310
+7.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 132 160−170
+21.2%
Far Cry 5 181 220−230
+21.5%
Fortnite 240−250 290−300
+18.9%
Forza Horizon 4 272 300−310
+10.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 166 200−210
+20.5%
Metro Exodus 152 180−190
+18.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 210−220
+21.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 295 350−400
+18.6%
Valorant 300−350 350−400
+11.5%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160−170 190−200
+18.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 122 140−150
+14.8%
Far Cry 5 167 200−210
+19.8%
Forza Horizon 4 231 280−290
+21.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 210−220
+21.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 168 200−210
+19%
Valorant 300−350 350−400
+11.5%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 240−250 290−300
+18.9%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 127 150−160
+18.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 400−450 450−500
+10.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 105 120−130
+14.3%
Metro Exodus 90 100−105
+11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 210−220
+20%
Valorant 350−400 400−450
+10.2%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140 160−170
+18.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 80 95−100
+18.8%
Far Cry 5 157 190−200
+21%
Forza Horizon 4 197 230−240
+16.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 120 140−150
+16.7%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 180−190
+19.2%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 45−50 55−60
+17%
Counter-Strike 2 31 35−40
+12.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 112 130−140
+16.1%
Metro Exodus 57 65−70
+14%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 89 100−105
+12.4%
Valorant 300−350 350−400
+12.5%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95 110−120
+17%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75 85−90
+19.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 36 40−45
+11.1%
Far Cry 5 82 95−100
+15.9%
Forza Horizon 4 134 160−170
+19.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 110−120
+14.6%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 95−100
+20.3%

This is how RX 7700 XT and PRO W7900 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7900 is 19% faster in 1080p
  • PRO W7900 is 18% faster in 1440p
  • PRO W7900 is 19% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 54.40 66.18
Recency 25 August 2023 26 May 2023
Maximum RAM amount 12 GB 48 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 245 Watt 295 Watt

RX 7700 XT has an age advantage of 2 months, and 17% lower power consumption.

PRO W7900, on the other hand, has a 22% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Radeon PRO W7900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 7700 XT in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 7700 XT is a desktop 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.


4.3 2916 votes

Rate Radeon RX 7700 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 7700 XT or Radeon PRO W7900, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.