AMD Radeon Pro VII vs AMD Radeon Pro W6600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records two shared workloads for these workstation GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the AMD Radeon Pro VII holds a decisive lead over the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro VII scores 90,148 points against 56,140 for the W6600M. That is a 60.6% advantage, the largest gap between the two cards in any recorded test. The margin is substantial enough to place the Pro VII in a different performance tier for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, which often stress raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth.

The Vulkan result narrows the gap somewhat but still favors the Pro VII. It posts 92,862 points, while the W6600M manages 67,652, a 37.3% difference. Vulkan tends to reward architectural efficiency and driver optimization, so the smaller delta suggests the W6600M's RDNA 2 design closes some of the gap in modern API workloads, even though it remains firmly behind.

Across the two head-to-head tests, the Pro VII wins both, giving it a 2-0 record. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 97,131, compared to 61,896 for the W6600M. That places the Pro VII in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the W6600M sits in the 89th percentile. Despite the lower raw scores, the W6600M's percentile is respectable, indicating that it still outperforms the vast majority of recorded GPUs.

For context on the Pro VII's standing, its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 7900M at 97,487 (0.4% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 at 101,872 (4.7% higher), and the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 at 92,466 (5% lower). The Pro VII sits comfortably between these cards. The W6600M, by contrast, trades blows with the AMD Radeon 8050S at 62,108 (0.3% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 at 60,347 (2.6% lower), and the Intel Arc Pro A60 at 60,326 (2.6% lower).

What the data shows is a clear hierarchy: the Pro VII is built for maximum throughput, while the W6600M trades some of that throughput for mobility and efficiency. The recorded benchmarks reflect that design intent.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Radeon Pro VII wins with a score of 90,148 versus 56,140 for the W6600M, a 60.6% advantage.

Q: Is the Vulkan result closer than OpenCL?

A: Yes. The Pro VII scores 92,862 in Vulkan, and the W6600M scores 67,652, a 37.3% gap, which is narrower than the 60.6% OpenCL delta.

Q: How do these cards rank against all GPUs in the database?

A: The Pro VII sits in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the W6600M is in the 89th percentile. Both are above average, but the Pro VII is further up the distribution.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Pro VII averages 97,131 across its recorded tests, and the W6600M averages 61,896.

Q: Does the W6600M beat any of its nearest rivals?

A: Yes. The W6600M scores 2.6% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 and the Intel Arc Pro A60, and 2.9% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 in the database's average score comparison.

Q: Which card has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Pro VII has 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth from 16 GB of HBM2 over a 4096-bit bus, while the W6600M has 224.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 over a 128-bit bus.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro VII wins in every shared benchmark in the database, so the use-case split is not about which card wins a given test, but rather which workloads each card is better suited for based on its recorded characteristics.

The Pro VII is the clear choice for compute-heavy, bandwidth-starved tasks. Its 16 GB of HBM2 memory with 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth is a massive advantage for large datasets, scientific simulation, or any workload that repeatedly accesses memory. Its FP32 throughput of 13.06 TFLOPS and FP16 throughput of 26.11 TFLOPS (2:1) further reinforce its position for general compute and half-precision workloads. The 3840 shading units and 240 texture units provide the raw parallel resources needed for dense number-crunching. This is a card for a fixed workstation where power draw of 250 W is acceptable and a dual-slot footprint with 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors is available.

The W6600M wins in the mobility and efficiency domain, even though it loses the raw benchmark race. Its 90 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Pro VII's 250 W, and it uses no power connectors, relying on the host system for power. Its IGP slot width means it is designed to be integrated into a portable chassis, not installed as an expansion card. The RDNA 2 architecture brings 28 ray tracing cores, a feature the Pro VII lacks entirely. For tasks that require ray tracing support or where power and space are constrained, the W6600M is the only viable option between the two. Its smaller 8 GB memory pool and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for many mobile professional workloads, and its Vulkan score of 67,652 shows it can handle modern APIs reasonably well.

The data also shows the W6600M's efficiency per watt is superior in practical terms. With roughly 68% of the Pro VII's average score (61,896 versus 97,131) but only 36% of the power draw (90 W versus 250 W), the W6600M delivers more performance per watt, even though absolute performance is lower.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every core specification. The Pro VII uses a Vega 20 chip with GCN 5.1 architecture, while the W6600M uses a Navi 23 chip with RDNA 2.0. Both are built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, but the Pro VII packs 13,230 million transistors on a 331 mm² die, while the W6600M has 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die. Transistor density is higher on the W6600M at 46.7M per mm² versus 40.0M per mm².

Clock speeds differ substantially. The Pro VII has a base clock of 1400 MHz and a boost clock of 1700 MHz. The W6600M starts lower at 1224 MHz base but boosts higher to 2034 MHz. Memory clocks also diverge: the Pro VII runs at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) with HBM2, while the W6600M runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) with GDDR6.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. The Pro VII has 16 GB, a 4096-bit bus, and 1.02 TB/s of bandwidth. The W6600M has 8 GB, a 128-bit bus, and 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro VII's memory bandwidth is 4.5 times higher.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the Pro VII. It has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The W6600M has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Pro VII also leads in texture rate (408.0 GTexel/s versus 227.8 GTexel/s) but trails in pixel rate (108.8 GPixel/s versus 130.2 GPixel/s), a result of the W6600M's higher boost clock.

Power and physical specifications are opposite in nature. The Pro VII consumes 250 W, requires a 600 W PSU, is dual-slot, and needs 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors. The W6600M consumes 90 W, has no power connectors, and is IGP. The Pro VII measures 305 mm in length and 111 mm in height; the W6600M has no recorded dimensions because it is meant for integration into a portable device.

Display outputs also differ: the Pro VII has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the W6600M is portable-device dependent. Release dates are about a year apart, with the Pro VII arriving on 2020-05-12 and the W6600M on 2021-06-07. The Pro VII had a launch MSRP of 1,899 USD; the W6600M has no recorded launch MSRP, consistent with its mobile OEM positioning.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational. The Pro VII is built on GCN 5.1, the final iteration of AMD's Graphics Core Next architecture, and uses the Vega 20 chip. The W6600M is built on RDNA 2.0, a completely different design philosophy, using the Navi 23 chip.

GCN 5.1 was designed for compute-heavy workloads and high throughput with large memory buses. The Pro VII's 4096-bit bus and HBM2 memory are direct consequences of this design. It has no ray tracing cores and relies on massive shader counts (3840) to achieve its 13.06 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. Its FP16 rate of 26.11 TFLOPS is exactly 2:1 versus FP32, indicating a straightforward packed math implementation.

RDNA 2.0, as implemented in the W6600M, takes a different approach. It uses a smaller 128-bit bus with GDDR6, which is cheaper and more power-efficient but requires higher clock speeds to compensate. The W6600M boosts to 2034 MHz, significantly higher than the Pro VII's 1700 MHz, which helps it achieve a higher pixel rate (130.2 GPixel/s) despite having fewer ROPs (64 in both cases).

The most notable architectural addition on the W6600M is its 28 ray tracing cores. These are absent on the Pro VII, meaning the older card cannot accelerate ray-traced workloads in hardware. The W6600M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro VII is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Vulkan support differs as well: the Pro VII supports Vulkan 1.3, and the W6600M supports Vulkan 1.4.

Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and use a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface. The transistor counts reflect the architectural shift: the Pro VII uses 13,230 million transistors for 3840 shading units, while the W6600M uses 11,060 million for 1792 shading units. The W6600M packs more transistors per square millimeter (46.7M versus 40.0M), indicating a denser, more modern process implementation despite the same 7 nm node.

The production status for both is end-of-life. The Pro VII's predecessor is Radeon Pro Polaris and its successor is Radeon Pro Navi. The W6600M's predecessor is FirePro Mobile, and it has no recorded successor. The Pro VII belongs to the Radeon Pro Vega (Vega II Series) generation, while the W6600M belongs to the Radeon Pro Mobile (W6x00M) generation.

In practical terms, the architecture difference explains the benchmark gap. The Pro VII's GCN design excels at raw compute and memory throughput, which is why it dominates OpenCL. The W6600M's RDNA 2 design is more efficient per clock and adds modern features like ray tracing and newer API support, which narrows the Vulkan gap even though absolute performance is lower.