Radeon PRO W7800 vs R7 370
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 370 with Radeon PRO W7800, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7800 outperforms R7 370 by a whopping 507% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 467 | 28 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.77 | 13.17 |
| Power efficiency | 7.47 | 19.18 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | Trinidad | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 18 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 13 April 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
PRO W7800 has 128% better value for money than R7 370.
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 cores | 1024 | 4480 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1895 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 975 MHz | 2525 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 57,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 260 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 62.40 | 707.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.997 TFLOPS | 45.25 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 128 |
| TMUs | 64 | 280 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 70 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 2.2 MB |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 6 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 64 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 152 mm | 280 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 2x 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 975 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 576.0 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
| Mantle | + | - |
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.
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.
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 HD | 46
−487%
| 270−280
+487%
|
| 1440p | 57
−426%
| 300−350
+426%
|
| 4K | 20
−500%
| 120−130
+500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.24
+186%
| 9.26
−186%
|
| 1440p | 2.61
+219%
| 8.33
−219%
|
| 4K | 7.45
+180%
| 20.83
−180%
|
- R7 370 has 186% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R7 370 has 219% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- R7 370 has 180% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
−493%
|
350−400
+493%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−491%
|
130−140
+491%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−504%
|
290−300
+504%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
−493%
|
350−400
+493%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−491%
|
130−140
+491%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
−491%
|
260−270
+491%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−500%
|
210−220
+500%
|
| Fortnite | 106
−466%
|
600−650
+466%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−496%
|
280−290
+496%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
−506%
|
200−210
+506%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 38
−505%
|
230−240
+505%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
−500%
|
600−650
+500%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−504%
|
290−300
+504%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
−493%
|
350−400
+493%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
−494%
|
950−1000
+494%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−491%
|
130−140
+491%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
−492%
|
450−500
+492%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 42
−495%
|
250−260
+495%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−500%
|
210−220
+500%
|
| Fortnite | 41
−485%
|
240−250
+485%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−496%
|
280−290
+496%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
−506%
|
200−210
+506%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
−491%
|
260−270
+491%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
−491%
|
130−140
+491%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30
−500%
|
180−190
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
−500%
|
210−220
+500%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
−500%
|
600−650
+500%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
−504%
|
290−300
+504%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−491%
|
130−140
+491%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
−492%
|
450−500
+492%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 32
−494%
|
190−200
+494%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
−500%
|
210−220
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−496%
|
280−290
+496%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−490%
|
230−240
+490%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
−491%
|
130−140
+491%
|
| Valorant | 20
−500%
|
120−130
+500%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30
−500%
|
180−190
+500%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−500%
|
120−130
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 81
−456%
|
450−500
+456%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−494%
|
95−100
+494%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−477%
|
75−80
+477%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
−447%
|
350−400
+447%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−493%
|
700−750
+493%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−471%
|
160−170
+471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−456%
|
50−55
+456%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
−471%
|
120−130
+471%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−465%
|
130−140
+465%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−477%
|
150−160
+477%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−500%
|
90−95
+500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−465%
|
130−140
+465%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45
−500%
|
270−280
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
−491%
|
130−140
+491%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−477%
|
75−80
+477%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−503%
|
350−400
+503%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−471%
|
80−85
+471%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−483%
|
35−40
+483%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−500%
|
240−250
+500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
−456%
|
50−55
+456%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−491%
|
65−70
+491%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−456%
|
100−105
+456%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−500%
|
60−65
+500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
−500%
|
60−65
+500%
|
This is how R7 370 and PRO W7800 compete in popular games:
- PRO W7800 is 487% faster in 1080p
- PRO W7800 is 426% faster in 1440p
- PRO W7800 is 500% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.71 | 64.96 |
| Recency | 18 June 2015 | 13 April 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 260 Watt |
R7 370 has 136.4% lower power consumption.
PRO W7800, on the other hand, has a 506.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO W7800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 370 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 370 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon PRO W7800 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.
