AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 vs AMD Radeon PRO W6800 Comparison

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 are both end-of-life professional accelerators from AMD, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies and target distinct workloads. The data shows a clear overall winner in the W6800, which leads the MI60 in both shared benchmark disciplines, yet the MI60 holds a significant advantage in memory bandwidth that the W6800 cannot match. The benchmark results indicate that the W6800 is the more versatile and faster card for general compute and graphics tasks, while the MI60’s specialized HBM2 memory configuration makes it a niche option for memory-bound workloads.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is the superior performer in the two tests where both cards were measured. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W6800 scores 121,808 versus the MI60’s 92,488, a substantial 31.7% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the W6800 again wins with 109,961 against 92,444, an 18.9% lead. With a win count of 2 to 0 in head-to-head benchmarks, the W6800 is the definitive choice for users prioritizing raw compute throughput and API versatility.

However, the choice is not purely about raw speed. The MI60’s 1.02 TB/s memory bandwidth is double the W6800’s 512.0 GB/s, and its 4096-bit bus width versus 256-bit is a massive architectural difference. For workloads that are heavily memory-bandwidth limited, such as large dataset processing or certain scientific simulations, the MI60’s memory subsystem could provide a practical edge despite its lower FP32 and FP16 throughput. The W6800 also holds a status advantage with a 96th percentile ranking among all GPUs compared to the MI60’s 93rd, though both are high performers. The W6800’s 32 GB GDDR6 memory matches the MI60’s 32 GB HBM2 capacity, so capacity is not a differentiator; the bandwidth is.

The W6800 is the safer recommendation for most users due to its higher compute performance, better API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate versus DirectX 12), and a display output configuration that supports up to six monitors. The MI60, with a single mini-DisplayPort and a higher 300 W TDP, is clearly designed for headless compute environments where display output is secondary. The data suggests the W6800 is the better all-rounder, while the MI60 is only preferable in scenarios where its unique memory bandwidth is the critical bottleneck.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins decisively in compute-bound benchmarks. Its 17.83 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 35.67 TFLOPS FP16 performance outpace the MI60’s 14.75 TFLOPS and 29.49 TFLOPS, respectively, representing a 20.9% and 20.9% advantage in theoretical peak throughput. This translates directly into the 31.7% OpenCL and 18.9% Vulkan benchmark wins. The W6800 also has a higher pixel rate (222.9 GPixel/s versus 115.2 GPixel/s) and texture rate (557.3 GTexel/s versus 460.8 GTexel/s), indicating superior rasterization and texture-heavy workload performance. Its support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, compared to the MI60’s DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, makes it the more future-proof option for graphics APIs.

The MI60’s only clear victory is in memory bandwidth, where its 1.02 TB/s is exactly double the W6800’s 512.0 GB/s. This is achieved through HBM2 memory on a 4096-bit bus, versus the W6800’s GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus. While the MI60’s FP32 and FP16 rates are lower, its memory architecture can feed data to the compute units faster, which may benefit algorithms with high data reuse or large memory footprints. The MI60 also has more shading units (4096 versus 3840) and more texture mapping units (256 versus 240), though these do not translate into benchmark wins. The MI60’s lower 64 ROPs versus the W6800’s 96 ROPs further indicates its focus away from pixel output.

For a user choosing between these two, the W6800 is the winner for rendering, simulation, and any general-purpose GPU compute that relies on shader throughput. The MI60 is a niche pick for tasks where the 1.02 TB/s bandwidth is the sole limiting factor, such as certain machine learning inference or large matrix operations, where the extra bandwidth can compensate for the lower compute rates.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on entirely different architectures. The W6800 uses RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 21 chip, while the MI60 uses GCN 5.1 with the Vega 20 chip. Both are fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there. The W6800 packs 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.5M per mm². In contrast, the MI60 has 13,230 million transistors on a smaller 331 mm² die, with a density of 40.0M per mm². This means the W6800 has more than double the transistors, reflecting its more complex and modern architecture.

The memory subsystems are radically different. The W6800 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MI60 uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, achieving 1.02 TB/s. The MI60’s memory clock is 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the W6800’s is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), but the MI60’s much wider bus gives it the bandwidth advantage. The W6800’s base and boost clocks are 1575 MHz and 2322 MHz, respectively, significantly higher than the MI60’s 1200 MHz base and 1800 MHz boost. This clock speed advantage contributes heavily to the W6800’s higher compute throughput.

The W6800 features 60 ray tracing cores, which the MI60 lacks entirely, as it has no ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The W6800 also has 96 ROPs versus the MI60’s 64, and 240 TMUs versus 256. The W6800’s API support is more advanced, with DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the MI60 offers DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Power consumption differs as well: the W6800 has a 250 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 600 W, while the MI60 has a 300 W TDP and suggests a 700 W PSU. Both use dual-slot cooling and a 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connector setup. The W6800 offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the MI60 has only a single mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, underscoring its compute-only intent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800, with 17.83 TFLOPS FP32 and 35.67 TFLOPS FP16, versus the MI60’s 14.75 TFLOPS FP32 and 29.49 TFLOPS FP16. This translates to a 31.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and an 18.9% lead in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Does the MI60 have any advantage over the W6800?

A: Yes, the MI60 has a significant memory bandwidth advantage: 1.02 TB/s versus the W6800’s 512.0 GB/s. This is due to its 4096-bit HBM2 bus versus the W6800’s 256-bit GDDR6 bus. For memory-bound workloads, this could be decisive.

Q: Which card is better for gaming or graphics rendering?

A: The W6800 is clearly better for graphics. It has 60 ray tracing cores, which the MI60 lacks, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the MI60’s DirectX 12 (12_1). Its pixel rate is 222.9 GPixel/s versus 115.2 GPixel/s, and it has 96 ROPs versus 64.

Q: What are the memory capacities of each card?

A: Both cards have 32 GB of memory. The W6800 uses GDDR6, while the MI60 uses HBM2. The capacity is identical, but the memory type and bus width differ significantly.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The W6800 has an average benchmark score of 135,396, placing it in the 96th percentile of all GPUs. The MI60’s average is 92,466, placing it in the 93rd percentile.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life. The W6800 was released on 2021-06-07, and the MI60 was released earlier on 2018-11-17.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two shared benchmarks are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the W6800 wins both. In OpenCL, the W6800 scores 121,808 against the MI60’s 92,488, a delta of 31.7%. This is a substantial margin, reflecting the W6800’s higher shader throughput and clock speeds. The MI60’s higher shading unit count (4096 versus 3840) does not compensate for its lower clocks and older architecture. In Vulkan, the W6800 scores 109,961 versus 92,444, an 18.9% lead. This narrower margin suggests that the MI60’s architecture handles Vulkan relatively better than OpenCL, but it still falls short.

The average benchmark scores confirm the trend. The W6800’s average is 135,396, which is 46.4% higher than the MI60’s 92,466. In the nearest rivals list, the W6800 is closest to the AMD Radeon PRO V620, with a delta of -0.8%, meaning the V620 scores slightly higher. The MI60 is closest to the AMD Radeon Pro VII, which is 4.8% higher. This places the W6800 in a higher performance tier overall. The W6800’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA A10M and RTX 4000 Ada Generation, both within 0.1% of its average score, indicating it is competitive with top-tier professional GPUs. The MI60’s rivals, such as the NVIDIA RTX A4500 and AMD Radeon RX 7900M, show it is also competitive but in a lower tier, with the MI60 trailing the RX 7900M by 5.2%.

The W6800’s victory is not just in raw scores but also in feature set. Its 60 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support make it a more modern and capable card for contemporary workloads. The MI60’s lack of ray tracing cores and older GCN architecture mean it is better suited for legacy compute tasks. The data is unambiguous: for any workload represented by these benchmarks, the W6800 is the faster and more capable GPU. The MI60’s only saving grace is its 1.02 TB/s memory bandwidth, which could be a deciding factor in specific memory-intensive applications not covered by these tests.