AMD FirePro D500 vs AMD Radeon RX 6600 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 6600 vs AMD FirePro D500 is a study in generational contrast. The RX 6600, built on RDNA 2.0, is a modern consumer GPU from 2021, while the FirePro D500 is a workstation card from 2014 using the older GCN 1.0 architecture. Benchmark data shows a single head-to-head test, the Geekbench Vulkan compute benchmark, where the RX 6600 delivers a decisive victory with a score of 67,623 compared to the FirePro D500’s 18,533. This translates to a 264.9% performance advantage, a gap that reflects not just raw compute power but also fundamental architectural evolution. The data suggests the RX 6600 is in a completely different performance class, yet the FirePro D500’s workstation heritage and unique memory subsystem warrant a closer look.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark, and the results are lopsided. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 scores 67,623, while the AMD FirePro D500 manages only 18,533. That is a delta of 264.9% in favor of the RX 6600. This benchmark measures compute workloads through the Vulkan API, which is a modern, low-overhead interface. The RX 6600’s lead here is not incremental; it is a 3.6x advantage, indicating that the newer card handles parallel compute tasks with far greater efficiency.

The RX 6600’s average benchmark score across all its tested workloads is 19,036, placing it at the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K6000 (avg score 19,030, delta 0%), the GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile (19,049, delta -0.1%), and the RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18,954, delta 0.4%). These are all modern or high-end prosumer cards, and the RX 6600 sits comfortably among them, with less than a 0.5% score difference from each. This suggests that while the RX 6600 wins the head-to-head against the FirePro D500 by a massive margin, its performance is tightly clustered with other contemporary GPUs, meaning the victory is more about era than about being an outlier.

The FirePro D500, by contrast, has only a single benchmark score: 18,533 on Geekbench Vulkan. This is its average benchmark score, and it puts the card at the 62nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 560X (18,626, delta -0.5%), Intel Arc A770M (18,383, delta 0.8%), and AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT (18,685, delta -0.8%). Notably, the FirePro D500’s score is nearly identical to its rivals, all of which are entry-level or mid-range cards from later generations. This means that in the Vulkan test, the FirePro D500 is performing at a level comparable to a budget gaming card from 2018, while the RX 6600 is performing at a level above many high-end options from the same period.

The 264.9% delta in the head-to-head is the single most important data point. It shows that for any Vulkan-based compute or rendering task, the RX 6600 will finish the job in less than a third of the time required by the FirePro D500. This is not a close competition; it is a generational wipeout. The FirePro D500’s age is its primary handicap, as its GCN 1.0 architecture lacks the modern instruction set optimizations and hardware scheduling that RDNA 2.0 brings.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6600 wins in every measurable category with the data provided. The single head-to-head benchmark shows a 264.9% lead, and that is the only direct comparison available. Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the RX 6600, it excels in modern API tests: it scores 88,398 on Geekbench Metal, 28,850 on Geekbench OpenCL, and 15,096 on Passmark G3D. These are all strong numbers for a mid-range card, and they indicate that the RX 6600 is well-suited for DirectX 12 Ultimate workloads, as well as Vulkan and Metal compute. Its Passmark DirectX 11 score of 152 and DirectX 9 score of 197 show it handles legacy APIs with ease, though its DirectX 12 score of 51 is lower, suggesting that specific test may be less favorable to its architecture.

The FirePro D500, with only one benchmark result, has no demonstrated wins. However, its specification sheet suggests where it might have been intended to excel. It features 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and 1x SDI output, which is a display configuration designed for multi-monitor workstation setups, not for gaming or consumer compute. Its memory bandwidth of 243.8 GB/s, while lower than the RX 6600’s 224.0 GB/s in this case, is actually higher, indicating that the FirePro D500 was built for heavy data throughput in professional applications like video editing or scientific visualization. That said, without benchmark data for those specific tasks, the analysis can only note the capability, not quantify it.

The RX 6600 also wins on efficiency. Its TDP is 132 W, while the FirePro D500 is rated at 274 W. The RX 6600 delivers more than 4x the compute performance (8.928 TFLOPS vs 2.227 TFLOPS) while drawing less than half the power. This makes the RX 6600 the clear choice for any environment where heat dissipation or electricity costs are a concern. The data shows no scenario where the FirePro D500 wins based on measurable performance, though its unique display output array is a qualitative advantage for specific multi-monitor professional use cases.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, explaining the performance chasm. The RX 6600 uses the Navi 23 chip on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7 million per mm². This modern node allows for high clock speeds: a base of 1626 MHz, a game clock of 2044 MHz, and a boost of 2491 MHz. The FirePro D500, in contrast, uses the Tahiti chip on the GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process. It has only 4,313 million transistors spread across a much larger 352 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 12.3 million per mm². Its clocks are not listed in the data, but the architecture’s age implies significantly lower frequencies.

The core configurations differ sharply. The RX 6600 has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). It also features 28 ray tracing cores, a technology absent from the FirePro D500. The FirePro D500 has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. This means the RX 6600 has 16.7% more shading units, 16.7% more TMUs, and exactly double the ROPs. The pixel rate tells the story: the RX 6600 achieves 159.4 GPixel/s versus the FirePro D500’s 23.20 GPixel/s, a 6.9x difference. Texture rate is similarly lopsided: 279.0 GTexel/s versus 69.60 GTexel/s, a 4x difference. FP32 compute is 8.928 TFLOPS versus 2.227 TFLOPS, a 4x difference as well. The RX 6600 also supports FP16 at 17.86 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the FirePro D500 has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The RX 6600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro D500 uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 384-bit bus, giving it 243.8 GB/s. The FirePro D500 actually has slightly higher bandwidth, but the RX 6600’s memory is faster (14 Gbps effective versus 5.1 Gbps effective). The RX 6600’s smaller bus is compensated by the newer memory technology, but the FirePro’s larger bus suggests it was designed for high-resolution framebuffers. The RX 6600 also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the FirePro D500 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which means the newer card has double the bandwidth per lane.

API support is a clear differentiator. The RX 6600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro D500 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 6600’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support includes features like ray tracing and variable rate shading, which the FirePro D500 cannot access. The Vulkan version difference (1.4 vs 1.2.170) further highlights the RX 6600’s modern driver stack. The RX 6600 is also more compact at 190 mm length versus the FirePro D500’s 279 mm, and it uses a single 8-pin power connector compared to the FirePro D500’s unspecified connector configuration.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 has a higher average benchmark score of 19,036, while the AMD FirePro D500 scores 18,533. This is a difference of about 2.7%, but the RX 6600’s score is based on 11 different tests, whereas the FirePro D500’s is based on a single Geekbench Vulkan test.

Q: Is the FirePro D500 better for multi-monitor setups?

A: Yes, based on specifications. The FirePro D500 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and 1x SDI output, while the RX 6600 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The FirePro D500’s configuration is clearly designed for professional multi-display environments.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The FirePro D500 has higher memory bandwidth at 243.8 GB/s, compared to the RX 6600’s 224.0 GB/s. However, the RX 6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 3 GB of GDDR5, and its memory runs at 14 Gbps effective versus 5.1 Gbps effective.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 6600 supports ray tracing, as it has 28 ray tracing cores. The AMD FirePro D500 has no ray tracing cores listed in its specifications.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The RX 6600 has a TDP of 132 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The FirePro D500 has a TDP of 274 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W. The RX 6600 is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which card is more compact?

A: The RX 6600 is 190 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 40 mm wide. The FirePro D500 is 279 mm long with no height or width listed. The RX 6600 is shorter and likely easier to fit in smaller cases.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6600 is the superior GPU for virtually any task measured. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 67,623 obliterates the FirePro D500’s 18,533, a 264.9% advantage. The RX 6600 also has more shading units (1792 vs 1536), double the ROPs (64 vs 32), and 4x the FP32 compute (8.928 TFLOPS vs 2.227 TFLOPS). It supports modern APIs like DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro D500 is stuck with DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 6600 is also more efficient, using 132 W versus 274 W, and has a newer 7 nm process versus 28 nm.

The FirePro D500’s only advantages are qualitative. It has more display outputs (6x mini-DisplayPort and 1x SDI versus 1x HDMI and 3x DisplayPort) and slightly higher memory bandwidth (243.8 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s). These features could matter for a niche professional workstation with many legacy monitors, but they do not compensate for the massive compute deficit. The FirePro D500’s average score of 18,533 places it at the 62nd percentile, just one point below the RX 6600’s 63rd percentile, which is surprising given the head-to-head result. This suggests that the FirePro D500 is not a terrible card in absolute terms, but it is completely outclassed by the RX 6600 in modern workloads.

For anyone choosing between these two, the RX 6600 is the only rational pick for gaming, 3D rendering, or any compute task. The FirePro D500 should only be considered for legacy multi-display setups where its unique output array is required, and where performance is not a priority. The data does not support any other conclusion.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6600 | AMD FirePro D500 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 11,060 million | 4,313 million |

| Die Size | 237 mm² | 352 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 46.7M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 112 | 96 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | None |

| FP32 Compute | 8.928 TFLOPS | 2.227 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | 17.86 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| Pixel Rate | 159.4 GPixel/s | 23.20 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 279.0 GTexel/s | 69.60 GTexel/s |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 384 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 243.8 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 14 Gbps effective | 5.1 Gbps effective |

| TDP | 132 W | 274 W |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 190 mm | 279 mm |

| Release Date | 2021-10-12 | 2014-01-17 |

| Launch MSRP | 329 USD | None |