Radeon PRO W7700 vs R5 (Bristol Ridge)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) with Radeon PRO W7700, including specs and performance data.

R5 (Bristol Ridge)
2016
12 Watt
2.43

PRO W7700 outperforms R5 (Bristol Ridge) by a whopping 1951% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking83761
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data56.20
Power efficiency3.7718.29
ArchitectureGCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameBristol RidgeNavi 32
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date1 June 2016 (8 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 cores3843072
Core clock speedno data1900 MHz
Boost clock speed800 MHz2600 MHz
Number of transistors3100 Million28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12-45 Watt190 Watt
Texture fill rateno data499.2
Floating-point processing powerno data31.95 TFLOPS
ROPsno data96
TMUsno data192
Ray Tracing Coresno data48

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data16 GB
Memory bus width64/128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data2250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data576.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-

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 Connectorsno data4x DisplayPort 2.1

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.7
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.2
Vulkan-1.3

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 HD11
−1900%
220−230
+1900%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.54

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−1900%
160−170
+1900%
Battlefield 5 3−4
−1900%
60−65
+1900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−1900%
120−130
+1900%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Far Cry 5 4
−1900%
80−85
+1900%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−1900%
120−130
+1900%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−1900%
220−230
+1900%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1900%
140−150
+1900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−1900%
400−450
+1900%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7
−1900%
140−150
+1900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−1900%
220−230
+1900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1927%
750−800
+1927%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−1900%
160−170
+1900%
Battlefield 5 3−4
−1900%
60−65
+1900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−1900%
120−130
+1900%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−1900%
80−85
+1900%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−1900%
120−130
+1900%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−1900%
220−230
+1900%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1900%
140−150
+1900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−1900%
400−450
+1900%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−1900%
120−130
+1900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−1900%
220−230
+1900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
−1900%
260−270
+1900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1927%
750−800
+1927%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−1900%
160−170
+1900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−1900%
120−130
+1900%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−1900%
80−85
+1900%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−1900%
220−230
+1900%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1900%
140−150
+1900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−1900%
400−450
+1900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−1900%
220−230
+1900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−1900%
260−270
+1900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−1927%
750−800
+1927%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−1900%
120−130
+1900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−1900%
80−85
+1900%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−1900%
80−85
+1900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1900%
60−65
+1900%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1900%
140−150
+1900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
−1900%
140−150
+1900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
−1900%
280−290
+1900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−1900%
60−65
+1900%

This is how R5 (Bristol Ridge) and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7700 is 1900% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.43 49.84
Recency 1 June 2016 13 November 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 190 Watt

R5 (Bristol Ridge) has 1483.3% lower power consumption.

PRO W7700, on the other hand, has a 1951% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) is a notebook 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.


AMD Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge)
Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge)
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.


3.3 24 votes

Rate Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) 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.