Radeon PRO W7700 vs RTX A2000 Embedded

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated41
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data66.45
Power efficiencyno data21.03
ArchitectureAmpere (2020−2024)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGA107SNavi 32
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date30 March 2022 (2 years ago)13 November 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores25603072
Core clock speed607 MHz1900 MHz
Boost clock speed1177 MHz2600 MHz
Number of transistorsno data28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology8 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt190 Watt
Texture fill rate94.16499.2
Floating-point processing power6.026 TFLOPS31.95 TFLOPS
ROPs3296
TMUs80192
Tensor Cores80no data
Ray Tracing Cores2048

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 x8PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 amount4 GB16 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s576.0 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent4x DisplayPort 2.1

API 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
OpenCL3.02.2
Vulkan1.31.3
CUDA8.6-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 30 March 2022 13 November 2023
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 8 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 190 Watt

RTX A2000 Embedded has 442.9% lower power consumption.

PRO W7700, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 60% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between RTX A2000 Embedded and Radeon PRO W7700. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that RTX A2000 Embedded is a mobile workstation card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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.


NVIDIA RTX A2000 Embedded
RTX A2000 Embedded
AMD Radeon PRO W7700
Radeon PRO W7700

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.7 3 votes

Rate RTX A2000 Embedded on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.8 4 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.