Radeon RX 7600M XT vs PRO W7500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO W7500 with Radeon RX 7600M XT, including specs and performance data.

PRO W7500
2023
8 GB GDDR6, 70 Watt
31.88

RX 7600M XT outperforms PRO W7500 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking186164
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation39.59no data
Power efficiency34.6921.64
ArchitectureRDNA 3.0 (2022−2025)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025)
GPU code nameNavi 33Navi 33
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date3 August 2023 (2 years ago)4 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$429 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

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

Pipelines / CUDA cores17922048
Core clock speed1500 MHz1280 MHz
Boost clock speed1700 MHz2469 MHz
Number of transistors13,300 million13,300 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)70 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate190.4316.0
Floating-point processing power12.19 TFLOPS20.23 TFLOPS
ROPs6464
TMUs112128
Ray Tracing Cores2832

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x16
Length216 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1344 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth172.0 GB/s288.0 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 Connectors4x DisplayPort 2.1Portable Device Dependent

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.76.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.22.2
Vulkan1.31.3

Synthetic benchmark performance

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.

PRO W7500 31.88
RX 7600M XT 34.08
+6.9%

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.

PRO W7500 13360
RX 7600M XT 14280
+6.9%

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 HD100−110
−17%
117
+17%
1440p55−60
−9.1%
60
+9.1%
4K30−35
−10%
33
+10%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.29no data
1440p7.80no data
4K14.30no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 331
+0%
331
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 116
+0%
116
+0%
God of War 130
+0%
130
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 317
+0%
317
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 96
+0%
96
+0%
Far Cry 5 127
+0%
127
+0%
Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 245
+0%
245
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 192
+0%
192
+0%
God of War 118
+0%
118
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 164
+0%
164
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 81
+0%
81
+0%
Dota 2 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Far Cry 5 127
+0%
127
+0%
Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 237
+0%
237
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 179
+0%
179
+0%
God of War 95
+0%
95
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 133
+0%
133
+0%
Metro Exodus 98
+0%
98
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 186
+0%
186
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 74
+0%
74
+0%
Dota 2 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Far Cry 5 120
+0%
120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 180
+0%
180
+0%
God of War 66
+0%
66
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 105
+0%
105
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 84
+0%
84
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 70
+0%
70
+0%
Metro Exodus 58
+0%
58
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 48
+0%
48
+0%
Far Cry 5 102
+0%
102
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 142
+0%
142
+0%
God of War 52
+0%
52
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 76
+0%
76
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21
+0%
21
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 74
+0%
74
+0%
Metro Exodus 35
+0%
35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 53
+0%
53
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 25
+0%
25
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 22
+0%
22
+0%
Dota 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90
+0%
90
+0%
God of War 33
+0%
33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

This is how PRO W7500 and RX 7600M XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 7600M XT is 17% faster in 1080p
  • RX 7600M XT is 9% faster in 1440p
  • RX 7600M XT is 10% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 31.88 34.08
Recency 3 August 2023 4 January 2023
Power consumption (TDP) 70 Watt 120 Watt

PRO W7500 has an age advantage of 6 months, and 71.4% lower power consumption.

RX 7600M XT, on the other hand, has a 6.9% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon PRO W7500 and Radeon RX 7600M XT.

Be aware that Radeon PRO W7500 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 7600M XT is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon PRO W7500
Radeon PRO W7500
AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT
Radeon RX 7600M XT

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 22 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 80 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon PRO W7500 or Radeon RX 7600M XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.