AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 vs AMD Radeon Pro W6600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for these two AMD professional GPUs is limited to a single shared test, but that test tells a clear story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 scores 68,562 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M scores 56,140 points. The Instinct MI25 wins by a decisive margin of 22.1%. That delta is substantial — it places the MI25 roughly a fifth ahead of the W6600M in raw compute throughput as measured by this workload.

The MI25’s OpenCL result places it in the 90th percentile of all GPUs, while the W6600M sits just one point lower at the 89th percentile. Despite the large score gap, both cards are within the same neighborhood of the broader GPU landscape. The MI25’s nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Arc A770 (68,809, -0.4%), the NVIDIA CMP 90HX (69,000, -0.6%), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 8200 (69,870, -1.9%), and the NVIDIA Quadro P6000 (69,986, -2%). The W6600M’s nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon 8050S (62,108, -0.3%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60,347, 2.6%), the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, 2.6%), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60,140, 2.9%).

The MI25’s win is not just a raw number — it reflects a fundamental difference in design priorities. The W6600M, despite its newer architecture and higher boost clock, cannot close the gap. In fact, the W6600M’s average benchmark score across all its recorded tests is 61,896, which is still below the MI25’s single OpenCL result of 68,562. The W6600M does post a Geekbench Vulkan score of 67,652, which is competitive with the MI25’s OpenCL number, but the MI25 has no Vulkan result in the database, so no direct comparison exists for that API.

The head-to-head table shows exactly one test, one winner, and a 22.1% delta. There are no reversals, no workloads where the W6600M pulls ahead. For compute-focused OpenCL tasks, the MI25 is the clear victor, and the margin is large enough to be meaningful in real-world terms.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundries. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 uses the Vega 10 chip built on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M uses the Navi 23 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is stark: 14 nm versus 7 nm, which explains the transistor density gap. The MI25 packs 12,500 million transistors across a 495 mm² die, yielding a density of 25.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The W6600M has 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, giving a density of 46.7 million per square millimeter — nearly double the density of the MI25.

The memory subsystems are entirely different. The MI25 uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 436.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6600M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s. The MI25’s memory bandwidth is roughly double that of the W6600M, which is a critical factor in compute-heavy workloads. Memory clock rates reflect the different technologies: the MI25 runs memory at 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective), while the W6600M runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The GDDR6 clock is much higher, but the narrow bus limits total bandwidth.

Compute resources differ substantially. The MI25 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The W6600M has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The MI25 has more than twice the shading units and TMUs, while ROP count is identical. The W6600M introduces 28 ray tracing cores, which the MI25 lacks entirely — a sign of the architectural generational shift. The MI25’s pixel rate is 96.00 GPixel/s, while the W6600M’s is 130.2 GPixel/s, meaning the newer card wins on pixel throughput despite fewer shading units. The texture rate tells a different story: the MI25 achieves 384.0 GTexel/s versus the W6600M’s 227.8 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds favor the W6600M. The MI25 has a base clock of 1400 MHz and a boost of 1500 MHz. The W6600M has a base of 1224 MHz but a much higher boost of 2034 MHz. That boost advantage helps the W6600M in pixel-heavy tasks but cannot compensate for the MI25’s raw compute resource advantage. Floating-point performance confirms this: the MI25 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the W6600M delivers 7.290 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.58 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The MI25 leads by roughly 68% in FP32 and FP16.

Power and physical design are also polar opposites. The MI25 has a 300 W TDP, requires a dual-slot cooler with two 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 700 W power supply. The W6600M has a 90 W TDP, is an IGP (integrated graphics package) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU, and its display outputs are portable-device dependent. The MI25 has no display outputs at all. The MI25 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the W6600M has no listed dimensions.

API support differs. The MI25 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The W6600M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W6600M’s newer API levels reflect its 2021 release versus the MI25’s 2017 release. The bus interface also advances: PCIe 3.0 x16 on the MI25 versus PCIe 4.0 x16 on the W6600M.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 scores 68,562 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 22.1% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M’s 56,140.

Q: Does the W6600M have any benchmark where it outperforms the MI25?

A: In the head-to-head benchmark data, the MI25 wins the only shared test. The W6600M has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 67,652, but the MI25 has no Vulkan result recorded, so no direct comparison exists.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The MI25 has 16 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 436.2 GB/s bandwidth. The W6600M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The MI25, on a 14 nm process, has a density of 25.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The W6600M, on a 7 nm process, has a density of 46.7 million per square millimeter.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Only the W6600M, which has 28 ray tracing cores. The MI25 has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The MI25 has a 300 W TDP, requires two 8-pin power connectors, and suggests a 700 W power supply. The W6600M has a 90 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on use case. For compute-heavy OpenCL workloads that stress raw shading throughput and memory bandwidth, the AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 is the superior part. Its 22.1% lead in the only shared benchmark is decisive, and its 90th percentile ranking versus the W6600M’s 89th confirms that edge. The MI25’s 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 436.2 GB/s bandwidth are simply in a different class than the W6600M’s 7.290 TFLOPS and 224.0 GB/s.

However, the W6600M is not without merit. Its 7 nm process, newer RDNA 2.0 architecture, and 28 ray tracing cores make it a more modern design. Its boost clock of 2034 MHz is far higher than the MI25’s 1500 MHz, and its pixel rate of 130.2 GPixel/s beats the MI25’s 96.00 GPixel/s. The W6600M also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, and runs at just 90 W TDP with no external power connectors — a massive efficiency advantage over the MI25’s 300 W requirement.

For a workstation or server environment where compute density and memory bandwidth are the priority, the MI25 is the choice. For a mobile or integrated scenario where power draw, physical footprint, and modern feature support matter more, the W6600M is the logical pick. The benchmark data cannot settle the question of which is “better” — it only shows that each card wins in different domains, and the MI25 wins the one domain where they overlap.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification category. The MI25 uses a Vega 10 chip on GCN 5.0 architecture, while the W6600M uses a Navi 23 chip on RDNA 2.0. The MI25 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries; the W6600M is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. Transistor counts are close — 12,500 million versus 11,060 million — but die size differs dramatically: 495 mm² versus 237 mm².

Clock speeds: the MI25 has a base of 1400 MHz and boost of 1500 MHz; the W6600M has a base of 1224 MHz and boost of 2034 MHz. Memory: the MI25 uses 16 GB of HBM2 at 852 MHz (1704 Mbps effective) on a 2048-bit bus; the W6600M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth: 436.2 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s.

Compute units: the MI25 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs; the W6600M has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The W6600M adds 28 ray tracing cores; the MI25 has none. Pixel rate: 96.00 GPixel/s versus 130.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 384.0 GTexel/s versus 227.8 GTexel/s. FP32: 12.29 TFLOPS versus 7.290 TFLOPS. FP16: 24.58 TFLOPS versus 14.58 TFLOPS (both 2:1).

Power: the MI25 has a 300 W TDP, is dual-slot, uses two 8-pin connectors, and suggests a 700 W PSU; the W6600M has a 90 W TDP, is IGP, uses no connectors, and has no PSU suggestion. The MI25 has no display outputs; the W6600M’s outputs are portable-device dependent. The MI25 uses PCIe 3.0 x16; the W6600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. API support: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), shared OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.4. The MI25 measures 267 mm by 111 mm; the W6600M has no listed dimensions. Release dates: 2017-06-26 for the MI25, 2021-06-07 for the W6600M. Both are end-of-life, and neither has a successor listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Instinct MI25 wins in every compute-oriented category that appears in the data. It dominates the OpenCL benchmark with a 22.1% margin. It has higher FP32 and FP16 throughput, more than double the shading units and TMUs, and nearly double the memory bandwidth. Its texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s is 68% higher than the W6600M’s. For tasks that scale with raw shading power, memory bandwidth, or texture throughput — such as scientific computing, data center inference, or heavy compute shaders — the MI25 is the stronger performer.

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M wins in efficiency and modern features. Its 90 W TDP is one-third of the MI25’s 300 W, and it requires no power connectors or special PSU. Its boost clock of 2034 MHz is 35% higher than the MI25’s 1500 MHz. Its pixel rate of 130.2 GPixel/s beats the MI25’s 96.00 GPixel/s, making it better suited for rasterization-heavy workloads. The inclusion of 28 ray tracing cores gives it capabilities the MI25 simply lacks. Its newer API support — DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 — means it can run more modern graphics workloads. Its portable-device-dependent display outputs and IGP form factor make it suitable for mobile workstations, while the MI25’s lack of outputs restricts it to headless compute.

The transistor density difference also favors the W6600M: 46.7 million transistors per square millimeter versus 25.3 million. That density advantage reflects the more advanced 7 nm process and contributes to the W6600M’s superior efficiency profile. The benchmark data does not include a Vulkan comparison, but the W6600M’s Vulkan score of 67,652 is close to the MI25’s OpenCL score of 68,562, suggesting that in API-adjacent workloads the gap may narrow — though no direct evidence exists in the head-to-head results.

In short: the MI25 wins where compute density and bandwidth matter; the W6600M wins where power efficiency, modern features, and mobility matter. The head-to-head data only records one contest, and the MI25 takes it. But the specification sheet tells a broader story of two very different design philosophies, each with a legitimate claim to a specific niche.