AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT vs AMD Radeon Pro W6600M Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M is the clear performance leader in this comparison. The database shows it wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with a 34.4% advantage in OpenCL and a massive 70.8% advantage in Vulkan. It also sits at the 89th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the 84th percentile for the Radeon Pro 5500 XT. The W6600M belongs in any workstation that prioritizes raw compute throughput, especially for Vulkan-based workloads where the gap is enormous.

The Radeon Pro 5500 XT, while older and slower, still holds relevance in specific contexts. Its 84th percentile ranking places it in the upper tier of GPUs overall, and its average benchmark score of 45384 puts it within 1.3% of the NVIDIA RTX 4070 Ti in the database's nearest rival list. For systems already built around the Radeon Pro Mac generation, or for tasks where its lower power draw matters, it remains a serviceable option. However, the data does not support choosing it over the W6600M when both are available and compatible with the host system.

The verdict is straightforward: the W6600M wins on every measured metric. The 5500 XT is not a competitive alternative unless the host platform specifically requires the older architecture or the lower 125 W TDP is a hard constraint.

Where Each One Wins

The W6600M wins both benchmark categories that the database records for this head-to-head pairing. In OpenCL, it scores 56140 versus 41772, a 34.4% lead. In Vulkan, it scores 67652 versus 39601, a 70.8% lead. There is no recorded test where the 5500 XT beats the W6600M.

The 5500 XT does have one unique benchmark result: a Geekbench Metal score of 54779. The W6600M has no Metal score recorded in the database. This suggests the 5500 XT is the only one of the two with validated Metal performance data, which could matter for macOS-oriented workflows. The 5500 XT's generation name is "Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Series)," reinforcing its Apple ecosystem positioning. The W6600M, by contrast, is listed under "Radeon Pro Mobile (W6x00M)" with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," indicating it is designed for mobile workstations rather than Mac desktops.

For general compute workloads, the W6600M wins outright. For Metal-specific applications on Mac platforms, the 5500 XT has the only recorded data point, though its absence of Vulkan and OpenCL competitiveness in the head-to-head tests suggests it is not the stronger compute part overall.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent consecutive RDNA generations. The W6600M is built on RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 23 chip, while the 5500 XT uses RDNA 1.0 with the Navi 14 chip. Both are manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process, but the transistor counts differ substantially: the W6600M packs 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, giving a density of 46.7 million transistors per square millimeter. The 5500 XT has 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, with a density of 40.5 million per square millimeter.

The W6600M's newer architecture brings hardware ray tracing: it has 28 ray tracing cores, while the 5500 XT has none. This is a fundamental feature difference, as RDNA 2.0 added dedicated RT hardware that RDNA 1.0 lacks. The W6600M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the 5500 XT is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Shader resources also favor the W6600M. It has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines. The 5500 XT has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. The W6600M's pixel rate of 130.2 GPixel/s is more than double the 5500 XT's 56.22 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 227.8 GTexel/s compares to 168.7 GTexel/s. Compute throughput follows the same pattern: 7.290 TFLOPS FP32 versus 5.398 TFLOPS, and 14.58 TFLOPS FP16 versus 10.80 TFLOPS, both with a 2:1 ratio.

The memory subsystems are identical in capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth: both have 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth and 1750 MHz memory clock (14 Gbps effective). The interface differs, however: the W6600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the 5500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Power consumption is notably different, with the W6600M rated at 90 W TDP and the 5500 XT at 125 W, though both use no external power connectors and are listed as IGP slot width. The 5500 XT lists a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the W6600M has no suggested PSU recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M has an average benchmark score of 61896, compared to 45384 for the Radeon Pro 5500 XT. The W6600M also sits at the 89th percentile among all GPUs versus the 84th percentile for the 5500 XT.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro W6600M support hardware ray tracing?

A: Yes. The W6600M has 28 ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture. The Radeon Pro 5500 XT, based on RDNA 1.0, has no ray tracing cores.

Q: Are the memory configurations the same?

A: They are identical in most respects. Both have 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth and 1750 MHz memory clock (14 Gbps effective). The only memory-related difference is the bus interface: the W6600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the 5500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

Q: Which GPU is better for Vulkan workloads?

A: The W6600M is dramatically better. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the W6600M scores 67652 versus 39601 for the 5500 XT, a 70.8% difference.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The W6600M has a 90 W TDP, while the 5500 XT has a 125 W TDP. The 5500 XT also lists a 300 W suggested PSU, while the W6600M has no suggested PSU recorded.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the 5500 XT has an advantage?

A: The 5500 XT has a recorded Geekbench Metal score of 54779, while the W6600M has no Metal score in the database. For OpenCL and Vulkan, the W6600M wins by margins of 34.4% and 70.8%, respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head tests between these GPUs, and the W6600M wins both decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the W6600M scores 56140 against 41772 for the 5500 XT. The 34.4% delta is substantial and reflects the W6600M's higher shading unit count, more ROPs, and higher clock speeds. The W6600M boosts to 2034 MHz versus 1757 MHz for the 5500 XT, and it carries 1792 shading units versus 1536. Its FP32 throughput of 7.290 TFLOPS versus 5.398 TFLOPS translates directly into OpenCL compute performance.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens to 70.8%. The W6600M scores 67652 while the 5500 XT manages only 39601. This is the largest recorded difference between the two and suggests the RDNA 2.0 architecture's Vulkan implementation is far more efficient than RDNA 1.0's. The W6600M's 28 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support likely contribute to a more modern driver stack and better low-level API utilization.

The 5500 XT's only benchmark win is contextual rather than direct: its Geekbench Metal score of 54779 is the sole Metal data point in the comparison. The W6600M has no Metal result recorded, so no head-to-head Metal comparison exists. For any user prioritizing Metal, the 5500 XT is the only one of the two with validated performance data.

The W6600M's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon 8050S (0.3% lower average score), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (2.6% lower), the Intel Arc Pro A60 (2.6% lower), and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (2.9% lower). The 5500 XT's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A730M (0.5% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Mobile (0.5% lower), the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation (1.3% higher), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti (1.3% lower). These figures place both cards in competitive tiers relative to their contemporaries, but the W6600M's absolute scores are far above the 5500 XT's.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every compute-related specification.

The chip and architecture are completely different generations: Navi 23 on RDNA 2.0 for the W6600M versus Navi 14 on RDNA 1.0 for the 5500 XT. The process node is the same (7 nm TSMC), but the physical implementation is not: 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die for the W6600M, 6,400 million on 158 mm² for the 5500 XT. Transistor density is 46.7M per mm² versus 40.5M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the W6600M. Its base clock is 1224 MHz and boost is 2034 MHz, compared to 1187 MHz base and 1757 MHz boost for the 5500 XT. Both have identical memory clocks: 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective.

Compute resources differ substantially. The W6600M has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The 5500 XT has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The W6600M adds 28 ray tracing cores; the 5500 XT has none. Pixel rate is 130.2 GPixel/s versus 56.22 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 227.8 GTexel/s versus 168.7 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 7.290 TFLOPS versus 5.398 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 14.58 TFLOPS versus 10.80 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio.

Memory is identical in size (8 GB), type (GDDR6), bus width (128 bit), and bandwidth (224.0 GB/s). The bus interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x16 on the W6600M versus PCIe 4.0 x8 on the 5500 XT.

Power and physical characteristics differ as well. The W6600M has a 90 W TDP; the 5500 XT has a 125 W TDP and a 300 W suggested PSU. Both are IGP slot width with no external power connectors. Display outputs differ: the W6600M is "Portable Device Dependent," while the 5500 XT lists "No outputs." The W6600M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2); the 5500 XT is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The release dates are separated by roughly ten months: the W6600M launched on June 7, 2021, while the 5500 XT launched on August 3, 2020. Both are marked end-of-life in the database. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.