Radeon 760M vs PRO W7500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO W7500 with Radeon 760M, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7500 outperforms 760M by a whopping 132% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 161 | 371 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 100.00 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 33.56 | 67.36 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 33 | Hawx Point |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 August 2023 (1 year ago) | 6 December 2023 (1 year 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.
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 | 1792 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1700 MHz | 2599 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,300 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 190.4 | 83.17 |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.19 TFLOPS | 5.323 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 32 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | 8 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 216 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR6 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1344 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 172.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 Connectors | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
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.
- Passmark
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 | 65−70
+117%
| 30
−117%
|
| 1440p | 40−45
+122%
| 18
−122%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.60 | no data |
| 1440p | 10.73 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Atomic Heart | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Atomic Heart | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how PRO W7500 and Radeon 760M compete in popular games:
- PRO W7500 is 117% faster in 1080p
- PRO W7500 is 122% faster in 1440p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 29.55 | 12.71 |
| Recency | 3 August 2023 | 6 December 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 15 Watt |
PRO W7500 has a 132.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 760M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 months, a 50% more advanced lithography process, and 366.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon PRO W7500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 760M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon PRO W7500 is a workstation card while Radeon 760M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
