AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 vs AMD Radeon Pro W6600X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench Metal score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X scores 107342 in Geekbench Metal, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 scores 71868. That gives the W6600X a 49.4% lead in the single recorded head-to-head benchmark.

Q: How does the Radeon Pro W6600X compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W6600X sits 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (106750) and 5.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (101872). It trails the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (109617) by 2.1% and the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 (110725) by 3.1%.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two cards?

A: The Radeon Pro W6600X has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro Vega 64 has 16 GB of HBM2 memory on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: No. The Radeon Pro W6600X includes 32 ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture. The Radeon Pro Vega 64 has no ray tracing cores listed in its specifications.

Q: Which card consumes more power?

A: The Radeon Pro Vega 64 has a TDP of 250 W, while the Radeon Pro W6600X has a TDP of 120 W. The W6600X also lists a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the Vega 64 does not have a suggested PSU figure recorded.

Q: What is the production status and release timeline for these GPUs?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The Radeon Pro W6600X was released on 2021-08-02, and the Radeon Pro Vega 64 was released on 2017-06-26. The W6600X has a launch MSRP of 699 USD.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points toward one clear choice for raw Metal performance: the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X. Its Geekbench Metal score of 107342 places it at the 94th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Radeon Pro Vega 64 sits at the 91st percentile with an average benchmark score of 72379. In the only direct head-to-head measurement, the W6600X wins by a substantial 49.4%.

However, the Radeon Pro Vega 64 has its own strengths that matter for specific workloads. It carries 16 GB of HBM2 memory with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth, more than double the memory capacity and 57% more bandwidth than the W6600X. For users whose tasks are memory-capacity bound rather than compute-bound, the older Vega card remains relevant.

The W6600X is the better pick for anyone prioritizing compute throughput, modern API support, and power efficiency. It delivers 10.15 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the Vega 64's 11.06 TFLOPS, but it does so at a 120 W TDP compared to 250 W. The Vega 64 does hold a slight FP32 advantage, yet that comes at more than double the power draw.

The Radeon Pro Vega 64 makes sense for users who need 16 GB of VRAM and the highest possible memory bandwidth in a portable or integrated form factor. Its IGP slot width and lack of power connectors suggest it is designed for systems where the card is embedded rather than installed as a discrete component. The W6600X, with its Apple MPX bus interface and dual-slot design, targets a different class of Mac Pro expansion.

For most database-visible workloads, the W6600X is the stronger performer. The Vega 64 is the niche choice for memory-heavy tasks that fit within its 16 GB frame buffer.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct comparison between these two GPUs: Geekbench Metal. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X scores 107342, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 scores 71868. The delta is 49.4%, meaning the W6600X is nearly half again as fast in this test.

This is a decisive margin. To put it in context, the W6600X's score sits between the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (109617, which is 2.1% faster) and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (106750, which is 0.6% slower). The Vega 64's score of 71868 places it near the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (72098, 0.4% faster) and the AMD Radeon RX 6650M (71768, 0.9% faster).

The W6600X also outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 by 5.4% in the nearest-rival comparison. That is a significant result for a card with a 120 W TDP against a professional workstation GPU that historically commanded a much higher power envelope.

The only head-to-head win belongs to the W6600X. The Vega 64 does not have a single winning benchmark in the recorded data. Its additional benchmark scores, Geekbench OpenCL at 71094 and Geekbench Vulkan at 74174, are not directly compared against the W6600X, which only has a Metal score recorded.

This asymmetry in available data means the verdict leans heavily on Metal performance, which is the relevant API for macOS-based workflows. The W6600X's 49.4% advantage in Metal is the kind of margin that translates to visibly faster rendering, compositing, and compute in Metal-accelerated applications.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category:

Process and Die: The W6600X uses a 7 nm process at TSMC with a 237 mm² die size. The Vega 64 uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries with a 495 mm² die. The W6600X packs 46.7 million transistors per mm² versus 25.3 million for the Vega 64. Total transistor counts are close: 11,060 million for the W6600X and 12,500 million for the Vega 64.

Clocks: The W6600X runs at a 2068 MHz base clock and 2479 MHz boost clock. The Vega 64 runs at 1250 MHz base and 1350 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the W6600X uses 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, while the Vega 64 uses 786 MHz with 1572 Mbps effective.

Memory: The W6600X has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Vega 64 has 16 GB HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute Units: The W6600X has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Vega 64 has 4096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs.

Ray Tracing: The W6600X includes 32 RT cores. The Vega 64 has none.

Pixel and Texture Rates: The W6600X achieves 158.7 GPixel/s and 317.3 GTexel/s. The Vega 64 achieves 86.40 GPixel/s and 345.6 GTexel/s. The W6600X is nearly twice as fast in pixel fill rate, while the Vega 64 is slightly faster in texture fill rate.

FP32 and FP16: The W6600X delivers 10.15 TFLOPS FP32 and 20.31 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The Vega 64 delivers 11.06 TFLOPS FP32 and 22.12 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The Vega 64 holds a modest lead in both.

Power and Form Factor: The W6600X has a 120 W TDP, is dual-slot, uses Apple MPX bus interface, and has no display outputs. The Vega 64 has a 250 W TDP, is IGP form factor, uses PCIe 3.0 x16, has no power connectors, and its display outputs are portable-device dependent.

API Support: The W6600X supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vega 64 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The W6600X is built on RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 23 chip, while the Vega 64 uses GCN 5.0 with the Vega 10 chip. This is a jump from a 14 nm design to a 7 nm design, which explains the massive clock speed difference: 2479 MHz boost for the W6600X versus 1350 MHz boost for the Vega 64.

The transistor density tells the story clearly. The W6600X crams 46.7 million transistors per mm² into a 237 mm² die, while the Vega 64 spreads 25.3 million transistors per mm² across a 495 mm² die. The Vega 64 actually has more total transistors (12,500 million versus 11,060 million), but the W6600X achieves higher performance with fewer transistors thanks to the newer architecture and denser process.

The W6600X introduces ray tracing hardware with 32 RT cores, a feature entirely absent from the Vega 64. This is a functional difference, not just a spec difference: applications that use ray tracing will run on the W6600X but not on the Vega 64.

The memory architectures are fundamentally different as well. The Vega 64 uses HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, which gives it massive bandwidth of 402.4 GB/s but limits capacity expansion. The W6600X uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, which delivers 256.0 GB/s but allows for higher clocks and simpler integration. The Vega 64's 16 GB capacity is double the W6600X's 8 GB, a direct consequence of the HBM2 stacking approach.

API support also diverges. The W6600X supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like mesh shaders and variable-rate shading. The Vega 64 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Vulkan support is also newer on the W6600X at version 1.4 versus 1.3.

The power delivery approach differs too. The W6600X is a dual-slot card with a 120 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Vega 64 is an integrated GPU with no power connectors and a 250 W TDP, suggesting it draws power through the system board rather than a dedicated connector.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X wins in compute performance per watt, modern API support, and ray tracing capability. Its 120 W TDP delivers 10.15 TFLOPS FP32, while the Vega 64 draws 250 W for 11.06 TFLOPS. In efficiency terms, the W6600X produces 84.6 GFLOPS per watt versus 44.2 GFLOPS per watt for the Vega 64. The W6600X also wins on pixel fill rate with 158.7 GPixel/s versus 86.40 GPixel/s, a 83.7% advantage.

The W6600X is the clear choice for Metal-accelerated workflows on macOS where the 49.4% benchmark lead will translate directly into faster rendering times. It is also the only option here for ray-traced content, given its 32 RT cores. Users running DirectX 12 Ultimate applications will need the W6600X, as the Vega 64 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 16 GB of HBM2 with 402.4 GB/s bandwidth is substantially ahead of the W6600X's 8 GB with 256.0 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bound, such as large dataset manipulation or high-resolution texture streaming, the Vega 64 has a clear advantage. It also holds a slight FP32 lead at 11.06 TFLOPS versus 10.15 TFLOPS, and a texture rate lead at 345.6 GTexel/s versus 317.3 GTexel/s.

The Vega 64's IGP form factor and lack of power connectors make it suitable for portable or integrated systems where a discrete expansion card is not possible. The W6600X requires an Apple MPX slot and a 300 W suggested PSU, which limits it to larger chassis.

In practical terms, the W6600X is the pick for modern 3D rendering, ray-traced workloads, and any application that leverages DirectX 12 Ultimate features. The Vega 64 remains viable for memory-heavy compute tasks that fit within its larger frame buffer and for systems that cannot accommodate a dual-slot card with dedicated power requirements.