AMD Radeon Pro Vega II vs AMD Radeon Pro W6600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two AMD professional graphics cards, with the Radeon Pro Vega II winning both head-to-head benchmark comparisons. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Vega II scores 99,048 against the W6600M's 56,140, a 76.4% advantage. That is a substantial margin, one that places the older card in a completely different performance tier for compute workloads. The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though the gap narrows slightly: the Vega II posts 99,621 versus 67,652, a 47.3% lead. Both deltas are large enough that the W6600M cannot compensate through driver optimizations or workload tuning; the Vega II simply has more raw throughput available.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this hierarchy. The Vega II sits at 109,617, while the W6600M averages 61,896. That is a 77% difference in aggregate performance. When placed against the broader GPU landscape, the Vega II holds a 94th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the W6600M lands at the 89th percentile. Those percentile positions matter: the Vega II is not merely faster, it sits closer to the top of the entire database, whereas the W6600M, despite being a capable mobile part, is grouped with a different class of hardware.

The nearest rivals listed in the database provide useful context for interpreting these scores. The Vega II's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon PRO W7900, which scores 110,725, a 1% delta in favor of the W7900. That is effectively a statistical tie. The Vega II also edges out the Radeon Pro W6600X (107,342, 2.1% faster) and the Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (106,750, 2.7% faster), while trailing the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (113,944, 3.8% faster). For the W6600M, its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 8050S at 62,108, a 0.3% difference, meaning the two are essentially equal. The W6600M does lead the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60,347, 2.6% faster) and the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326, 2.6% faster), and it beats the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60,140, 2.9% faster). So while the W6600M is competitive within its own segment, that segment is far below the Vega II's territory.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Radeon Pro Vega II is the stronger GPU in every measured benchmark. It wins OpenCL by 76.4% and Vulkan by 47.3%. Its average score is 77% higher, and its 94th percentile ranking versus the W6600M's 89th confirms that the Vega II belongs to a higher performance class. For workloads that depend on raw compute throughput, rendering performance, or memory bandwidth, the Vega II is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements.

The W6600M, however, is not without its rationale. It is a mobile part, and its specifications reflect that purpose. The data shows it holding its own against desktop parts like the RTX 4090 and the Arc Pro A60, with deltas of 2.6% in its favor. It is also within 0.3% of the Radeon 8050S, meaning it trades blows with the best in its immediate peer group. For a mobile workstation where power draw, physical size, and thermal constraints are primary concerns, the W6600M is a sensible option. The Vega II is a quad-slot, 475 W desktop card with an Apple MPX interface; it was never designed for portability.

Who should pick which? Strictly from the data, a user prioritizing maximum compute performance, especially in OpenCL and Vulkan, should choose the Vega II. Its 2:1 FP16 ratio, larger memory pool, and higher bandwidth make it the more capable rendering and compute tool. A user who needs a mobile workstation GPU that still delivers competitive performance within its class, and who cannot accommodate a quad-slot card, should choose the W6600M. The trade-off is clear: 76.4% more OpenCL performance versus 90 W of power draw and an integrated form factor. The database does not tell us which is more important; it only shows the performance differential.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The Radeon Pro Vega II uses the Vega 20 chip, built on GCN 5.1 architecture. The W6600M uses the Navi 23 chip, built on RDNA 2.0. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 7 nm process, but the transistor counts and die sizes differ. The Vega 20 packs 13,230 million transistors on a 331 mm² die, giving a density of 40.0M transistors per mm². The Navi 23 contains 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, with a higher density of 46.7M per mm². The smaller, denser RDNA chip reflects a newer design philosophy, but the Vega chip compensates with a much larger raw transistor budget.

Memory architecture is where the two diverge sharply. The Vega II uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 825.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6600M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 224.0 GB/s. That is a 3.7x difference in memory bandwidth and a 4x difference in capacity. For large datasets, rendering scenes, or AI workloads that exceed 8 GB, the Vega II is the only option between the two. The W6600M's smaller memory footprint will hit limits sooner, regardless of its architectural efficiency.

Compute resources also differ significantly. The Vega II has 4,096 shading units, 256 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The W6600M has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Vega II's shading unit count is 2.3x higher, which explains its substantial OpenCL lead. The Vega II also has higher FP32 throughput at 14.09 TFLOPS versus 7.290 TFLOPS, and FP16 at 28.18 TFLOPS versus 14.58 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio. The W6600M does have 28 ray accelerators (RT cores), which the Vega II lacks entirely, giving the RDNA card a feature advantage in ray-traced workloads, though the database's benchmarks do not isolate that capability.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The W6600M boosts to 2,034 MHz, higher than the Vega II's 1,720 MHz boost. Despite this clock advantage, the W6600M cannot overcome the Vega II's massive resource lead. The Vega II's pixel rate is 110.1 GPixel/s, while the W6600M reaches 130.2 GPixel/s, meaning the newer card is 18% faster in pixel output. The texture rate, however, favors the Vega II: 440.3 GTexel/s versus 227.8 GTexel/s. So the W6600M wins on pixel fill, the Vega II wins on texture and compute.

Feature support also differs. The Vega II supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The W6600M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer RDNA card has a more modern API feature set, including hardware ray tracing support. The Vega II's bus interface is Apple MPX, while the W6600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the Vega II offers 1x HDMI 2.0b and 4x Thunderbolt, while the W6600M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The Radeon Pro Vega II scores 99,048 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 76.4% higher than the W6600M's 56,140. The Vega II's FP32 throughput is 14.09 TFLOPS versus 7.290 TFLOPS for the W6600M.

Q: Is the W6600M competitive with desktop GPUs in its performance class?

A: Yes. The W6600M's average score of 61,896 is within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon 8050S (62,108), and it leads the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60,347) by 2.6% and the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326) by 2.6%.

Q: Can the W6600M handle ray-traced workloads?

A: It has 28 ray accelerators, which the Vega II does not have. The W6600M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Vega II only supports DirectX 12 (12_1), so the W6600M is the only one of the two with hardware ray tracing capability.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Vega II has 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 825.3 GB/s bandwidth. The W6600M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s. The Vega II has 4x the capacity and 3.7x the bandwidth.

Q: Why does the Vega II win despite the W6600M having a higher boost clock?

A: The W6600M boosts to 2,034 MHz versus the Vega II's 1,720 MHz, but the Vega II has 4,096 shading units versus 1,792. The Vega II's much larger resource count outweighs the W6600M's clock speed advantage in compute-heavy workloads.

Q: Which GPU is more suitable for a mobile workstation?

A: The W6600M is designed for mobile use, with a 90 W TDP, integrated form factor, and no power connectors. The Vega II is a quad-slot card with a 475 W TDP and Apple MPX interface, which is not portable.

Where Each One Wins

The Vega II wins decisively in compute and memory-bound tasks. Its OpenCL score of 99,048 and Vulkan score of 99,621 dominate the W6600M's 56,140 and 67,652. For workloads that stress FP32 or FP16 compute, such as simulation, rendering, or machine learning inference, the Vega II's 14.09 TFLOPS FP32 and 28.18 TFLOPS FP16 give it a clear edge. The 32 GB HBM2 pool with 825.3 GB/s bandwidth means it can handle large datasets that would exhaust the W6600M's 8 GB GDDR6. The Vega II also wins on texture rate, 440.3 GTexel/s versus 227.8 GTexel/s, making it better for texture-heavy rendering.

The W6600M wins in a different category: efficiency and feature modernity. Its 90 W TDP is a fraction of the Vega II's 475 W, and its integrated form factor makes it suitable for laptops. The W6600M's 2,034 MHz boost clock is higher, and its pixel rate of 130.2 GPixel/s beats the Vega II's 110.1 GPixel/s, suggesting better fill-rate performance for certain display tasks. The 28 ray accelerators and DirectX 12 Ultimate support give it a feature advantage for ray-traced content and newer API workloads, even if the database benchmarks do not directly measure those capabilities. The W6600M also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus the Vega II's 1.3.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards in the database:

• Chip: Vega 20 (Vega II) versus Navi 23 (W6600M)
• Architecture: GCN 5.1 versus RDNA 2.0
• Generation: Radeon Pro Mac (Vega Series) versus Radeon Pro Mobile (W6x00M)
• Transistors: 13,230 million versus 11,060 million
• Die Size: 331 mm² versus 237 mm²
• Transistor Density: 40.0M / mm² versus 46.7M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1,574 MHz versus 1,224 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1,720 MHz versus 2,034 MHz
• Memory Clock: 806 MHz (1,612 Mbps effective) versus 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 32 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory Type: HBM2 versus GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 4096 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 825.3 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 4,096 versus 1,792
• TMUs: 256 versus 112
• RT Cores: null versus 28
• Pixel Rate: 110.1 GPixel/s versus 130.2 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 440.3 GTexel/s versus 227.8 GTexel/s
• FP32: 14.09 TFLOPS versus 7.290 TFLOPS
• FP16: 28.18 TFLOPS versus 14.58 TFLOPS
• TDP: 475 W versus 90 W
• Slot Width: Quad-slot versus IGP
• Power Connectors: null versus None
• Suggested PSU: 850 W versus null
• Bus Interface: Apple MPX versus PCIe 4.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt versus Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Vulkan Support: 1.3 versus 1.4
• Release Date: 2019-06-02 versus 2021-06-07
• Predecessor: null versus FirePro Mobile
• Launch MSRP: 2,199 USD versus null