AMD Radeon Pro VII vs AMD Radeon PRO W6600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a clear picture: the AMD Radeon Pro VII wins all three head-to-head tests against the AMD Radeon PRO W6600, with margins ranging from 15.2% to 22.6%. The largest gap appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Pro VII scores 90,148 against the W6600’s 73,514, a 22.6% advantage. This suggests the older Vega 20 GPU retains a significant edge in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, which is notable given its 2020 release versus the W6600’s 2021 launch.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro VII’s lead narrows to 18.4%, scoring 92,862 versus 78,428. This remains a substantial margin, indicating that even in more modern graphics APIs, the Pro VII’s raw hardware resources—3840 shading units versus 1792—carry the day. The smallest delta is in Geekbench Metal, where the Pro VII posts 108,383 against 94,042, a 15.2% win. Metal is Apple’s API, and the Pro VII’s dominance there is consistent with its HBM2 memory and 4096-bit bus, which provide 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth compared to the W6600’s 224.0 GB/s.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this trend. The Pro VII’s average is 97,131, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the W6600 averages 81,995, sitting in the 92nd percentile. Despite the W6600’s newer RDNA 2.0 architecture, the Pro VII’s sheer compute throughput—13.06 TFLOPS FP32 versus 9.247 TFLOPS—proves decisive across every test. The W6600 does not win a single benchmark, with winsA at 3 and winsB at 0.

Looking at rivals, the Pro VII’s 97,131 average sits just 0.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 7900M’s 97,487, while beating the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 by 4.7% (101,872). The W6600’s 81,995 average is only 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X’s 80,959, and it edges the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 by 2.7% (79,842). These deltas show that the W6600 competes in a lower performance tier, while the Pro VII trades blows with high-end workstation cards.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Metal, and by how much?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro VII wins with a score of 108,383 versus the W6600’s 94,042, a 15.2% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two cards?

A: The Pro VII averages 97,131, while the W6600 averages 81,995, giving the Pro VII a 18.5% higher average score.

Q: Does the W6600 outperform the Pro VII in any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Pro VII wins all three tests (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan), with winsA at 3 and winsB at 0.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rival in terms of average score?

A: The Pro VII’s 97,131 average is 5% higher than the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60’s 92,466 and 6% higher than the NVIDIA RTX A4500’s 91,671. The W6600’s 81,995 average is 1.3% ahead of the Radeon Pro Vega 64X’s 80,959 and 3.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB’s 79,396.

Q: What memory configuration does each card use, and how does it affect bandwidth?

A: The Pro VII uses 16 GB of HBM2 with a 4096-bit bus, yielding 1.02 TB/s bandwidth. The W6600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s bandwidth—a 4.5x difference in favor of the Pro VII.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The W6600 has significantly higher clocks: 2331 MHz base and 2580 MHz boost, versus the Pro VII’s 1400 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. Despite this, the Pro VII still wins all benchmarks due to its wider memory bus and higher shader count.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent distinct architectural generations from AMD. The Radeon Pro VII is built on GCN 5.1 with the Vega 20 chip, while the Radeon PRO W6600 uses RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 23 chip. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process, but the transistor counts differ: the Vega 20 packs 13,230 million transistors on a 331 mm² die, yielding a density of 40.0M / mm². The Navi 23 has 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 46.7M / mm². This reflects RDNA 2.0’s more efficient layout.

The shading unit counts tell a story of brute force versus efficiency. The Pro VII fields 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the W6600 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The W6600 introduces 28 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro VII, which has no RT cores. This makes the W6600 DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) compliant, whereas the Pro VII tops out at DirectX 12 (12_1). For Vulkan, the W6600 supports version 1.4, while the Pro VII supports 1.3.

The memory architectures are fundamentally different. The Pro VII uses 16 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, achieving 1.02 TB/s bandwidth—a massive figure for its era. The W6600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s. This 4.5x bandwidth gap explains why the Pro VII dominates in compute benchmarks despite lower clock speeds. The Pro VII’s pixel rate is 108.8 GPixel/s, while the W6600’s is 165.1 GPixel/s, but the Pro VII’s texture rate of 408.0 GTexel/s exceeds the W6600’s 289.0 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute also favors the Pro VII: 13.06 TFLOPS versus 9.247 TFLOPS. FP16 follows the same pattern, with the Pro VII at 26.11 TFLOPS (2:1) and the W6600 at 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1). The W6600’s RDNA 2.0 architecture brings efficiency gains—its 100 W TDP is less than half the Pro VII’s 250 W—but that efficiency does not translate into higher benchmark scores.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is memory bandwidth: 1.02 TB/s on the Pro VII versus 224.0 GB/s on the W6600. This stems from the bus width (4096-bit versus 128-bit) and memory type (HBM2 versus GDDR6). Memory capacity also differs, with the Pro VII offering 16 GB versus 8 GB on the W6600.

Clock speeds are reversed: the W6600 runs at 2331 MHz base and 2580 MHz boost, while the Pro VII runs at 1400 MHz base and 1700 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ as well—the Pro VII’s memory runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the W6600’s runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Shader and texture units are halved on the W6600 (1792 shading units, 112 TMUs versus 3840 and 240), though both have 64 ROPs.

Power and physical specs diverge sharply. The Pro VII draws 250 W with a suggested 600 W PSU, requiring a dual-slot cooler and 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors. The W6600 draws 100 W with a suggested 300 W PSU, uses a single-slot cooler and 1x 6-pin connector. The Pro VII is longer at 305 mm (12 inches) versus the W6600’s 241 mm (9.5 inches). The Pro VII has six mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the W6600 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Pro VII uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the W6600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8.

The Pro VII’s launch MSRP was 1,899 USD, while the W6600’s was 649 USD. Both cards are end-of-life, with the Pro VII releasing on 2020-05-12 and the W6600 on 2021-06-07. The Pro VII’s predecessor is Radeon Pro Polaris and successor is Radeon Pro Navi; the W6600’s predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, with no successor listed.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro VII outperforms the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 across every benchmark tested. With a 22.6% lead in OpenCL, 18.4% in Vulkan, and 15.2% in Metal, the Pro VII is the clear choice for workloads that rely on raw compute throughput. Its 13.06 TFLOPS FP32 and 1.02 TB/s memory bandwidth are decisive advantages that the W6600’s higher clocks and ray tracing cores cannot overcome.

However, the W6600 is not without merit. Its 100 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient, requiring only a 300 W PSU and a single-slot cooler. For users with space or power constraints, the W6600’s 8 GB of GDDR6 and 9.247 TFLOPS FP32 still place it in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs, just 1.3% behind the Radeon Pro Vega 64X. It also supports ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate, features the Pro VII lacks entirely.

Who should pick which? The Pro VII suits compute-heavy professional workloads—think OpenCL rendering, scientific simulation, or large dataset processing—where its 16 GB HBM2 and 4096-bit bus shine. The W6600 fits efficiency-focused deployments, such as compact workstations or multi-GPU setups, where its lower power draw and single-slot design are advantages. The Pro VII’s 93rd percentile ranking versus the W6600’s 92nd is a narrow gap, but the benchmark deltas show a performance chasm that only specific use cases can bridge. For pure performance, the Pro VII wins outright. For efficiency and modern API support, the W6600 holds its ground.