AMD Radeon PRO V620 vs AMD Radeon Pro W6600X Comparison

# AMD Radeon PRO V620 vs AMD Radeon Pro W6600X

The AMD Radeon PRO V620 is the decisively stronger GPU in this comparison, delivering roughly 27% higher aggregate benchmark performance than the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X. The PRO V620 posts an average benchmark score of 136,472 compared to 107,342 for the W6600X, placing the former in the 96th percentile of all GPUs and the latter in the 94th. While both cards share the RDNA 2.0 architecture and 7 nm process node, they target fundamentally different use cases: the PRO V620 is a compute-oriented workhorse with 32 GB of memory and no display outputs, while the W6600X is a Mac-specific solution with 8 GB and a 120 W power envelope. The benchmark data leaves little ambiguity about which card offers superior raw performance, though the W6600X's efficiency and form factor may suit specific environments.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO V620 scores 136,472 on average, which is 27.1% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X's 107,342. The PRO V620 also reaches the 96th percentile of all GPUs, while the W6600X sits at the 94th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The PRO V620 offers 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W6600X provides 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth — exactly half the capacity and half the bandwidth of the larger card.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The PRO V620 has a 300 W TDP with a suggested 700 W power supply and dual 8-pin connectors. The W6600X draws only 120 W with a suggested 300 W power supply and requires no external power connectors.

Q: Do both cards support the same API feature set?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither card has tensor cores, and both lack display outputs entirely.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The W6600X runs at a higher base clock of 2068 MHz and boost clock of 2479 MHz. The PRO V620 operates at 1825 MHz base and 2200 MHz boost, despite having significantly more compute units.

Q: How does the PRO V620 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The PRO V620 is just 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo (135,774), 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 (135,396), and 0.9% ahead of both the NVIDIA A10M (135,230) and NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation (135,218).

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on RDNA 2.0 architecture using TSMC's 7 nm process, but they diverge sharply in silicon scale. The PRO V620 uses the Navi 21 chip with 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 51.5M per mm². The W6600X employs the smaller Navi 23 chip, packing 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die with a density of 46.7M per mm². This represents a 2.4x difference in transistor count and a 2.2x difference in die area.

The compute configuration reflects this disparity. The PRO V620 fields 4,608 shading units, 288 texture mapping units, 128 raster operation units, and 72 ray tracing cores. The W6600X is roughly a third of that scale: 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 RT cores. Consequently, theoretical peak performance differs dramatically — the PRO V620 delivers 20.28 TFLOPS FP32 and 40.55 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the W6600X manages 10.15 TFLOPS FP32 and 20.31 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The pixel fill rate is 281.6 GPixel/s versus 158.7 GPixel/s, and texture fill rate is 633.6 GTexel/s versus 317.3 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture also separates the two. The PRO V620 features a 256-bit memory bus with 32 GB GDDR6, while the W6600X has a 128-bit bus with 8 GB. Both run memory at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective data rate, but the wider bus gives the PRO V620 512.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. The cards also differ in their system integration: the PRO V620 uses standard PCIe 4.0 x16, while the W6600X uses Apple MPX bus interface. The PRO V620's generation is listed as "Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series)" whereas the W6600X is part of "Radeon Pro Mac (Navi II Series)," indicating the latter's Apple ecosystem orientation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons are not available, but the aggregate data sets a clear hierarchy. The PRO V620's average score of 136,472 against the W6600X's 107,342 represents a 27.1% performance advantage. This gap is consistent with the underlying hardware differences — the PRO V620 has 2.25x the shading units, 2.25x the TMUs, 2x the ROPs, and 2.25x the RT cores of the W6600X, plus 4x the memory capacity and 2x the bandwidth.

The PRO V620's benchmark percentile ranking reinforces its superior standing. Sitting at the 96th percentile of all GPUs, it outperforms the vast majority of graphics cards ever tested. The W6600X, at the 94th percentile, is still a high performer but trails meaningfully. In terms of nearest rivals, the PRO V620 edges out the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo by 0.5% (135,774), the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 by 0.8% (135,396), and both the NVIDIA A10M and RTX 4000 Ada Generation by 0.9% (135,230 and 135,218 respectively). The W6600X, by contrast, sits 2.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (109,617) and 3.1% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 (110,725), while leading the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo by 0.6% (106,750) and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 by 5.4% (101,872).

The performance differential in absolute terms is substantial: the PRO V620 outscores the W6600X by 29,130 points. This is not a marginal gap; it represents a full performance tier of separation. The W6600X's higher clock speeds (2068 MHz base and 2479 MHz boost versus 1825 MHz and 2200 MHz) cannot compensate for the PRO V620's massive advantage in compute unit count and memory subsystem width.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. Process node and architecture are shared (7 nm, RDNA 2.0), and both use GDDR6 memory running at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective data rate. Beyond those commonalities, the specifications diverge:

• Chip: Navi 21 (PRO V620) versus Navi 23 (W6600X)
• Transistors: 26,800 million versus 11,060 million
• Die size: 520 mm² versus 237 mm²
• Transistor density: 51.5M / mm² versus 46.7M / mm²
• Base clock: 1825 MHz versus 2068 MHz
• Boost clock: 2200 MHz versus 2479 MHz
• Memory size: 32 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory bus width: 256-bit versus 128-bit
• Memory bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 4,608 versus 2,048
• TMUs: 288 versus 128
• ROPs: 128 versus 64
• RT cores: 72 versus 32
• Pixel rate: 281.6 GPixel/s versus 158.7 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 633.6 GTexel/s versus 317.3 GTexel/s
• FP32: 20.28 TFLOPS versus 10.15 TFLOPS
• FP16: 40.55 TFLOPS versus 20.31 TFLOPS
• TDP: 300 W versus 120 W
• Power connectors: 2x 8-pin versus none
• Suggested PSU: 700 W versus 300 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 versus Apple MPX
• Dimensions: 267 mm x 120 mm x 50 mm versus not specified
• Release date: November 3, 2021 versus August 2, 2021
• Generation: Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series) versus Radeon Pro Mac (Navi II Series)

The W6600X has a launch MSRP of 699 USD. Both cards are end-of-life products with no display outputs.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the AMD Radeon PRO V620 for raw compute performance. Its 27.1% higher average benchmark score, 4x memory capacity, and 2x memory bandwidth make it the superior choice for workloads that demand large datasets and heavy parallel processing. The PRO V620's 96th percentile ranking versus the W6600X's 94th confirms its place in a higher performance tier. The PRO V620's nearest rivals are all within 1% of its score, indicating it sits at the top of a competitive cluster, while the W6600X's nearest rivals show a wider spread, with some exceeding it by over 3%.

However, the W6600X is not without merit. Its 120 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU make it far more energy-efficient, requiring no external power connectors. The higher clock speeds (2068 MHz base, 2479 MHz boost) suggest better per-clock efficiency, and the Apple MPX bus interface indicates it was designed for Mac Pro systems. The W6600X's launch MSRP of 699 USD provides a reference point for its intended market position, though pricing considerations are secondary to the performance data.

For users prioritizing maximum compute throughput, the PRO V620 is the clear winner. For those constrained by power budgets or requiring Apple MPX compatibility, the W6600X serves a specific niche. The benchmark data cannot support a case for the W6600X outperforming the PRO V620 in any compute scenario — the gap in shading units, memory bandwidth, and TFLOPS is simply too large.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon PRO V620 wins in:

• Aggregate benchmark performance: 136,472 versus 107,342 (27.1% higher)
• Memory capacity: 32 GB versus 8 GB, enabling larger datasets
• Memory bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s
• Compute throughput: 20.28 TFLOPS FP32 versus 10.15 TFLOPS
• Ray tracing capability: 72 RT cores versus 32
• Pixel and texture fill rates: 281.6 GPixel/s and 633.6 GTexel/s versus 158.7 GPixel/s and 317.3 GTexel/s
• Rasterization throughput: 128 ROPs versus 64
• Overall GPU percentile ranking: 96th versus 94th

AMD Radeon Pro W6600X wins in:

• Power efficiency: 120 W TDP versus 300 W
• Power supply requirements: 300 W suggested versus 700 W
• Clock speeds: 2068 MHz base and 2479 MHz boost versus 1825 MHz and 2200 MHz
• Apple ecosystem compatibility: Apple MPX bus interface versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Transistor density efficiency: 46.7M / mm² versus 51.5M / mm² (though absolute density is lower, the smaller chip achieves proportionally more per watt)
• Physical footprint: dimensions not specified, but the lower power envelope suggests simpler cooling requirements

The use-case split is clean: the PRO V620 targets compute-heavy, memory-intensive professional workloads where performance per watt is secondary to absolute throughput. The W6600X targets Apple Mac Pro environments where the MPX interface is required and where the 120 W power draw allows for quieter, more compact system integration. Neither card offers display outputs, so both are strictly for compute acceleration rather than workstation graphics output.