AMD Radeon Pro 560 vs AMD Radeon RX 6600 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 and the AMD Radeon Pro 560 represent two distinct eras of GPU design, yet the benchmark data places them in a surprisingly close overall ranking. The RX 6600 is a modern discrete graphics card built on RDNA 2.0, while the Pro 560 is an older integrated-class mobile part based on GCN 4.0. The data shows a decisive performance gap in favor of the RX 6600, but the Pro 560’s efficiency and specific design goals merit a closer look. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and the specific use cases where each card holds an advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unequivocal, with the AMD Radeon RX 6600 winning all three shared benchmark tests. The largest margin appears in the Geekbench Metal test, where the RX 6600 scores 88,398 against the Pro 560’s 20,918. This translates to a delta of 322.6%, meaning the RX 6600 is more than four times faster in this API. This is a massive gap, indicating that for any Metal-accelerated workload, the RX 6600 is in a completely different performance class.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similarly lopsided result. The RX 6600 achieves a score of 67,623, while the Pro 560 manages only 16,232. The resulting deltaPct is 316.6%, confirming that the architectural leap from GCN 4.0 to RDNA 2.0 provides a staggering advantage in modern, low-level graphics APIs. The RX 6600’s score here is over four times higher, suggesting that its newer shader and compute architecture is far more efficient at translating work into performance.

The closest contest occurs in the Geekbench OpenCL test, though the outcome is still a clear win for the RX 6600. The RX 6600 scores 28,850, while the Pro 560 scores 15,504, resulting in an 86.1% delta. While this is a significant margin, it is notably smaller than the Metal and Vulkan gaps. This suggests that OpenCL workloads, which are often more compute-heavy and less reliant on specific hardware features, narrow the gap slightly. However, the RX 6600 still nearly doubles the Pro 560’s output, underscoring its superior raw compute capabilities, which are listed at 8.928 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1.858 TFLOPS.

Looking at the aggregate data, the RX 6600 holds an average benchmark score of 19,036, placing it in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs. The Pro 560, with an average score of 17,551, sits in the 61st percentile. This is a remarkable finding: despite the massive performance disparity in individual tests, the overall percentile ranking is only two points apart. The Pro 560’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 780M, has an average score of 17,588, showing it is competitive within its own niche. The RX 6600’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, scores 19,030, a delta of 0%. This indicates that while the RX 6600 is far ahead of the Pro 560, its overall standing in the global GPU hierarchy is closer than the head-to-head numbers might suggest.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental divide between these two cards lies in their underlying architectures, which the data shows are generations apart. The RX 6600 is built on RDNA 2.0 using a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the Pro 560 uses the older GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This process difference alone is significant, allowing the RX 6600 to pack 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 46.7M per mm². In contrast, the Pro 560 has only 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 24.4M per mm².

The core configurations differ dramatically. The RX 6600 features 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. It also includes 28 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro 560, which has no RT cores listed. The Pro 560 is equipped with 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This lower ROP count directly impacts its pixel fill rate, which is 14.51 GPixel/s compared to the RX 6600’s 159.4 GPixel/s. The texture rate tells a similar story: 58.05 GTexel/s for the Pro 560 versus 279.0 GTexel/s for the RX 6600.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The RX 6600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 560 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but its bandwidth is only 81.28 GB/s. This is a direct consequence of the memory clock speeds, with the RX 6600 running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) compared to the Pro 560’s 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). The RX 6600 also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Pro 560 is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8.

Feature support further separates them. The RX 6600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Pro 560 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The RX 6600’s FP16 performance is listed at 17.86 TFLOPS (2:1), indicating a doubled rate, whereas the Pro 560’s FP16 is equal to its FP32 at 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1). The RX 6600 is a dual-slot card with a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU, while the Pro 560 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results create a clear delineation of strengths. The RX 6600 wins in every tested category, making it the obvious choice for any performance-intensive task. Its 322.6% lead in Metal and 316.6% lead in Vulkan show that it is exceptionally well-suited for modern gaming and high-end graphics applications that leverage these APIs. The 86.1% lead in OpenCL also indicates strong compute potential, making it viable for content creation, rendering, and other GPU-accelerated workloads. Given its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, the data supports its use for higher-resolution textures and more complex scenes.

The Pro 560, despite losing all head-to-head tests, still holds a distinct advantage in one critical area: power consumption. With a TDP of 75 W and no power connectors, it is designed for integrated use in portable devices, as indicated by its "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs. The RX 6600, with a 132 W TDP and an 8-pin connector, requires a more robust power delivery system. For a user prioritizing battery life or a compact, low-heat form factor, the Pro 560’s efficiency is a qualitative win that the raw benchmark scores do not capture.

The data also shows that the Pro 560 is not without merit in its own generation. Its average benchmark score of 17,551 places it in the 61st percentile, and its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 780M, a modern integrated GPU. This suggests that the Pro 560, despite being from 2017, still performs competitively against newer integrated solutions. However, its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 81.28 GB/s bandwidth limit its ability to handle large datasets or modern game assets, making it suitable only for lighter, legacy workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 has an average benchmark score of 19,036, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560 has an average score of 17,551. This puts the RX 6600 in the 63rd percentile and the Pro 560 in the 61st percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest gap is in the Geekbench Metal test, where the RX 6600 scores 88,398 versus the Pro 560’s 20,918, resulting in a 322.6% delta in favor of the RX 6600.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 560 support ray tracing?

A: No. The Pro 560 has no ray tracing cores listed in its specifications. The RX 6600, in contrast, includes 28 dedicated RT cores.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The RX 6600 has a memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s using 8 GB of GDDR6, while the Pro 560 has 81.28 GB/s using 4 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus.

Q: Is the Radeon Pro 560 more power-efficient?

A: Yes. The Pro 560 has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors, while the RX 6600 has a TDP of 132 W and requires a 1x 8-pin power connector. The Pro 560 is an IGP, whereas the RX 6600 is a dual-slot card.

Q: Which card is newer?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 was released on 2021-10-12, while the AMD Radeon Pro 560 was released on 2017-04-17. The RX 6600 is also built on a 7 nm process versus the 14 nm process of the Pro 560.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for anyone seeking raw performance: the AMD Radeon RX 6600 is the superior GPU. It wins all head-to-head benchmarks by massive margins, offers more than four times the performance in Metal and Vulkan, and doubles the OpenCL score. Its architectural advantages—RDNA 2.0, 7 nm process, 8 GB GDDR6, and ray tracing support—make it the only choice for modern gaming, high-resolution rendering, or any compute-intensive task. The 63rd percentile ranking, while moderate, still places it above the vast majority of GPUs, and its nearest rival (NVIDIA Quadro K6000) is essentially a tie in average score.

The AMD Radeon Pro 560, however, is not without a purpose. Its 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it a unique part designed for integrated systems where space and power are at a premium. For a user with a portable device that cannot accommodate a discrete card, the Pro 560 offers a baseline level of 3D acceleration that is still competitive with modern integrated GPUs like the AMD Radeon 780M. Its 61st percentile ranking is respectable given its age and integrated nature.

Ultimately, the choice depends entirely on the use case. The RX 6600 is for those who demand performance and have the system to support it. The Pro 560 is for those who need a low-power, integrated solution and are willing to accept significantly lower benchmark scores. There is no contest in terms of speed, but there is a clear niche for the Pro 560’s efficiency-focused design.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specification differences between the two cards, based solely on the provided data.

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6600 | AMD Radeon Pro 560 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Transistors | 11,060 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 237 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 46.7M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 112 | 64 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| RT Cores | 28 | None |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 81.28 GB/s |

| FP32 Performance | 8.928 TFLOPS | 1.858 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 17.86 TFLOPS (2:1) | 1.858 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 159.4 GPixel/s | 14.51 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 279.0 GTexel/s | 58.05 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 132 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | None |

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

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |