Radeon 890M vs PRO W7700

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO W7700 with Radeon 890M, including specs and performance data.

PRO W7700
2023, $999
16 GB GDDR6, 190 Watt
54.68
+181%

PRO W7700 outperforms 890M by a whopping 181% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking52315
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation31.22no data
Power efficiency22.16100.00
ArchitectureRDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025)
GPU code nameNavi 32Strix Point
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date13 November 2023 (2 years ago)15 July 2024 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

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 cores30721024
Core clock speed1900 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed2600 MHz2900 MHz
Number of transistors28,100 million34,000 million
Manufacturing process technology5 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)190 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate499.2185.6
Floating-point processing power31.95 TFLOPS5.939 TFLOPS
ROPs9632
TMUs19264
Ray Tracing Cores4816
L0 Cache768 KB256 KB
L1 Cache768 KB256 KB
L2 Cache2 MB2 MB
L3 Cache64 MBno data

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 datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length241 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount16 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed2250 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth576.0 GB/sno data
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 support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.76.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.22.1
Vulkan1.31.3

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.

PRO W7700 54.68
+181%
Radeon 890M 19.48

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 W7700 22865
+181%
Samples: 81
Radeon 890M 8148
Samples: 1655

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 HD120−130
+179%
43
−179%
1440p50−55
+178%
18
−178%

Cost per frame, $

1080p8.33no data
1440p19.98no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 117
+0%
117
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 91
+0%
91
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 57
+0%
57
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 80
+0%
80
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 44
+0%
44
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 71
+0%
71
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 53
+0%
53
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 53
+0%
53
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 50
+0%
50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how PRO W7700 and Radeon 890M compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7700 is 179% faster in 1080p
  • PRO W7700 is 178% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 54.68 19.48
Recency 13 November 2023 15 July 2024
Chip lithography 5 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 190 Watt 15 Watt

PRO W7700 has a 180.7% higher aggregate performance score.

Radeon 890M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 1166.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 890M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 890M 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 W7700
Radeon PRO W7700
AMD Radeon 890M
Radeon 890M

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.


4.8 12 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 294 votes

Rate Radeon 890M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon PRO W7700 or Radeon 890M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.