A10G vs PRO W7900 for Blender
Compare A10G 24 GB and PRO W7900 48 GB for Blender Cycles. See benchmark performance, VRAM, power ratings and checked prices side by side. PRO W7900 48 GB leads the Blender benchmark score by 12.9%.
Fastest in Cycles
PRO W7900 48 GB
13% faster than A10G 24 GB
Most VRAM
PRO W7900 48 GB
100% more VRAM than A10G 24 GB
Lowest power draw
A10G 24 GB
49% lower rating than PRO W7900 48 GB
Cheapest
Cannot compare
Price unavailable for some GPUs
Best value for money
Cannot compare
Price or benchmark unavailable for some GPUs
GPU comparison
Key specifications for Blender rendering.
| Spec | A10G 24 GB | PRO W7900 48 GB |
|---|---|---|
| Lowest price | Price unavailable No current offer matches your preferences. | Price unavailable No current offer matches your preferences. |
| Value for money | N/A | N/A |
| Blender benchmark score | 3,204.76 | 3,618.68 +13% |
| VRAM | 24 GB More capacity for heavy scenes | 48 GB More capacity for heavy scenes+100% |
| System PSU | 450 W Secondary source suggestion−25% | 600 W Secondary source suggestion |
| Render support | CUDA, OpenCL | OpenCL |
| Performance | ||
| CUDA cores | 9,216 | N/A |
| Boost clock | 1710 MHz | 2495 MHz +46% |
| RT cores | 72 | 96 +33% |
| Tensor cores | 288 | N/A |
| Memory | ||
| Memory bandwidth | 600.2 GB/s | 864 GB/s +44% |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory bus | 384-bit | 384-bit |
| Platform | ||
| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 3.0 |
| TDP | 150 W −49% | 295 W |
| Release year | 2021 | 2023 |
Blender Cycles benchmarks
Estimated seconds / frame Lower is faster
A10G 24 GB
Blender 3.2.1 · OptiX · 7 runs
PRO W7900 48 GB
Blender 3.6.0 · HIP · 5 runs
Junkshop
Monster
Classroom
Which GPU should you choose for Blender?
PRO W7900 48 GB is the stronger Blender rendering pick here based on benchmark score.
Cycles rendering performance
PRO W7900 48 GB leads by 12.9% in the Renderjuice Blender benchmark model (3,619 vs 3,205). For render-time-first decisions, that is the card to prioritize.
VRAM and scene capacity
PRO W7900 48 GB has more scene headroom with 48 GB of VRAM versus 24 GB on A10G 24 GB. That matters most for large environments, dense geometry, high-resolution textures, and less optimized production files.
Power ratings and cooling
A10G 24 GB is the lower-power option at 150 W TDP, compared with 295 W for PRO W7900 48 GB. If render speed is close, that can make A10G 24 GB easier to cool and run quietly.
Is the upgrade worthwhile?
PRO W7900 48 GB is both the newer and faster Blender rendering choice here. The main reason to choose A10G 24 GB would be price, availability, existing ownership, or a specific workstation requirement.
Comparison summary
PRO W7900 48 GB leads the Blender benchmark score by 12.9%.
Fastest in Cycles: PRO W7900 48 GB 13% faster than A10G 24 GB.
Most VRAM: PRO W7900 48 GB 100% more VRAM than A10G 24 GB.
Lowest power draw: A10G 24 GB 49% lower rating than PRO W7900 48 GB.
Cheapest: Cannot compare Price unavailable for some GPUs.
Best value for money: Cannot compare Price or benchmark unavailable for some GPUs.
A10G 24 GB has 24 GB of VRAM, while PRO W7900 48 GB has 48 GB, which matters when scenes, textures, or geometry get heavier.
If you are deciding between these cards for Blender, focus first on Blender benchmark score, VRAM capacity, memory bandwidth, and whether your scenes are likely to benefit more from raw speed or extra memory headroom. The comparison table above keeps those tradeoffs in one place.