AMD Radeon Pro W5500X vs AMD Radeon RX 6600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct comparison between these two GPUs, and it is decisive. In the Geekbench Metal test, the AMD Radeon RX 6600M scores 92,237, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X scores 27,973. That gives the RX 6600M a commanding 69.7% lead, a margin so large it defines the entire performance relationship between these cards.

This is not a close contest. The RX 6600M more than triples the Pro W5500X's output in this compute-oriented benchmark. For context, the Pro W5500X sits at the 73rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the RX 6600M sits at the 68th percentile. The percentile gap is narrower than the raw score gap, which suggests the Pro W5500X is clustered among other older workstation parts, whereas the RX 6600M is pulling ahead of its own peer group by a significant amount.

Looking at the rivals list for each card reinforces the split. The Pro W5500X trades blows with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, coming in just 0.2% behind it, and it is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7800M. Those are effectively dead heats. Meanwhile, the RX 6600M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M290X, with a 0% delta, and it is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16. The RX 6600M's average benchmark score across all tests is 23,273, which is dragged down by its lower DirectX and Passmark scores, but its Geekbench Metal result of 92,237 is clearly the standout data point.

The single head-to-head result means there is no ambiguity: in the one metric both cards share, the RX 6600M wins outright. The Pro W5500X has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison, while the RX 6600M claims the only win. This is a clean sweep, and it sets the tone for the rest of the analysis. If you are choosing between these two for any Metal-accelerated workload, the RX 6600M is the one that shows up with the numbers to back it.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial and explains much of the benchmark delta. The Pro W5500X is built on RDNA 1.0, using the Navi 14 chip, while the RX 6600M uses RDNA 2.0 on the Navi 23 die. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process, but the RX 6600M packs significantly more hardware into that node.

Transistor counts tell the story. The Pro W5500X has 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, giving a density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 6600M has 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, with a density of 46.7 million per square millimeter. That is over 70% more transistors in the RX 6600M, and the density increase shows the newer architecture is using the silicon more efficiently.

The execution resources follow suit. The Pro W5500X has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The RX 6600M steps up to 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That is 16.7% more shaders, 16.7% more TMUs, and exactly double the ROPs. The RX 6600M also includes 28 ray tracing cores, a feature the Pro W5500X lacks entirely. The Pro W5500X has no ray tracing hardware, which places it firmly in the pre-RDNA 2 era.

Clock speeds are another major differentiator. The Pro W5500X runs at a base of 1187 MHz and boosts to 1757 MHz. The RX 6600M runs at a base of 2068 MHz, boosts to 2416 MHz, and has a game clock of 2177 MHz. Even at its base clock, the RX 6600M is nearly 75% faster than the Pro W5500X's boost clock. That clock advantage compounds with the larger shader count to produce the RX 6600M's massive lead in raw throughput.

The memory subsystems are identical in capacity and type: both have 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus, with 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth and memory clocks rated at 1750 MHz or 14 Gbps effective. This is one area where the two cards are equal, though the RX 6600M's higher compute throughput means it can feed that bandwidth more effectively.

The API support also differs. The Pro W5500X supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 6600M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both have OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6600M's DirectX 12 Ultimate support aligns with its ray tracing hardware and newer feature set.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600M boosts to 2416 MHz, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X boosts to 1757 MHz, a difference of 659 MHz in favor of the RX 6600M.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both have 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth with 14 Gbps effective memory speed.

Q: Does the Pro W5500X support ray tracing?

A: No, the Pro W5500X has no ray tracing cores. The RX 6600M includes 28 ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture.

Q: How does the Pro W5500X compare to its nearest rival?

A: The Pro W5500X is effectively tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti, sitting 0.2% behind it in average benchmark score. It is also 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7800M.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The RX 6600M has a transistor density of 46.7 million per square millimeter, while the Pro W5500X has 40.5 million per square millimeter. The RX 6600M also packs 11,060 million total transistors versus 6,400 million in the Pro W5500X.

Q: What is the power draw of each card?

A: The Pro W5500X has a TDP of 125 W, while the RX 6600M has a TDP of 100 W, making the RX 6600M both faster and more power-efficient on paper.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification, with only a few shared traits. The most important differences are listed below.

• Architecture: RDNA 1.0 on the Pro W5500X versus RDNA 2.0 on the RX 6600M.
• Chip: Navi 14 on the Pro W5500X versus Navi 23 on the RX 6600M.
• Transistors: 6,400 million on the Pro W5500X versus 11,060 million on the RX 6600M.
• Die Size: 158 mm² on the Pro W5500X versus 237 mm² on the RX 6600M.
• Transistor Density: 40.5M / mm² on the Pro W5500X versus 46.7M / mm² on the RX 6600M.
• Base Clock: 1187 MHz on the Pro W5500X versus 2068 MHz on the RX 6600M.
• Boost Clock: 1757 MHz on the Pro W5500X versus 2416 MHz on the RX 6600M.
• Shading Units: 1536 on the Pro W5500X versus 1792 on the RX 6600M.
• TMUs: 96 on the Pro W5500X versus 112 on the RX 6600M.
• ROPs: 32 on the Pro W5500X versus 64 on the RX 6600M.
• Ray Tracing Cores: None on the Pro W5500X versus 28 on the RX 6600M.
• Pixel Rate: 56.22 GPixel/s on the Pro W5500X versus 154.6 GPixel/s on the RX 6600M.
• Texture Rate: 168.7 GTexel/s on the Pro W5500X versus 270.6 GTexel/s on the RX 6600M.
• FP32 Performance: 5.398 TFLOPS on the Pro W5500X versus 8.659 TFLOPS on the RX 6600M.
• FP16 Performance: 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1) on the Pro W5500X versus 17.32 TFLOPS (2:1) on the RX 6600M.
• TDP: 125 W on the Pro W5500X versus 100 W on the RX 6600M.
• Slot Width: Dual-slot on the Pro W5500X versus IGP on the RX 6600M.
• Bus Interface: Apple MPX on the Pro W5500X versus PCIe 4.0 x8 on the RX 6600M.
• Display Outputs: 2x HDMI 2.0b on the Pro W5500X versus Portable Device Dependent on the RX 6600M.
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) on the Pro W5500X versus 12 Ultimate (12_2) on the RX 6600M.
• Release Date: 2019-12-10 for the Pro W5500X versus 2021-05-30 for the RX 6600M.
• Launch MSRP: 599 USD for the Pro W5500X; no launch MSRP recorded for the RX 6600M.

The shared specifications are limited to memory size (8 GB), memory type (GDDR6), bus width (128 bit), bandwidth (224.0 GB/s), memory clock (1750 MHz, 14 Gbps effective), OpenGL support (4.6), and Vulkan support (1.4).

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the RX 6600M wins the only head-to-head benchmark, and it wins by a wide margin. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 6600M's 92,237 score versus the Pro W5500X's 27,973 means the RX 6600M is the pick for any workload that relies on Metal API performance. This is a compute-focused metric, and the RX 6600M's larger shader count, higher clocks, and double ROP count all contribute to its dominance.

The RX 6600M also wins on architectural grounds. Its RDNA 2.0 architecture brings ray tracing cores, which the Pro W5500X lacks entirely. For any modern workload that uses DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the RX 6600M is the only one of the two that can handle it. The Pro W5500X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), which rules out the latest feature tier.

The RX 6600M's higher pixel rate (154.6 GPixel/s versus 56.22 GPixel/s) and texture rate (270.6 GTexel/s versus 168.7 GTexel/s) make it the clear choice for rasterization-heavy tasks at high resolutions. Its FP32 throughput of 8.659 TFLOPS is 60.4% higher than the Pro W5500X's 5.398 TFLOPS, which translates directly to faster general-purpose compute.

The Pro W5500X does have one practical advantage: its slot width and form factor. It is a dual-slot card with an Apple MPX bus interface and 2x HDMI 2.0b outputs, designed for desktop Mac systems. The RX 6600M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no dedicated power connectors and display outputs that depend on the portable device it is built into. The Pro W5500X also has a lower transistor density, which may indicate a simpler thermal profile, though its 125 W TDP is higher than the RX 6600M's 100 W.

There is no benchmark where the Pro W5500X wins outright. Its only competitive position is in the mid-range percentile tier, where it ties with older cards like the GTX 980 Ti. For someone who specifically needs a dual-slot, Apple MPX-compatible card with HDMI outputs, the Pro W5500X is the only option of the two. But for raw performance, every recorded metric favors the RX 6600M.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6600M is the superior GPU in every measured performance category. Its Geekbench Metal score of 92,237 crushes the Pro W5500X's 27,973, and its architectural advantages are not close. The RX 6600M has more shaders, more TMUs, double the ROPs, ray tracing cores, higher clocks, and higher throughput across the board. It also does this at a lower TDP of 100 W versus 125 W for the Pro W5500X.

Who should pick the RX 6600M? Anyone building or buying a portable system that needs strong compute and rasterization performance. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and 8 GB of GDDR6 memory make it suitable for modern gaming and content creation workloads. Its 28 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support mean it is future-proofed for features the Pro W5500X simply cannot run. The RX 6600M's benchmark percentile of 68 is lower than the Pro W5500X's 73, but that is a function of the average across all its tests, which include older DirectX and Passmark workloads. The Geekbench Metal result, which is the shared metric, tells the real story.

Who should pick the Pro W5500X? Only someone with a hard requirement for its form factor and connectivity. The Pro W5500X is a dual-slot card with an Apple MPX bus and 2x HDMI 2.0b outputs, making it a direct fit for compatible Mac systems. Its 599 USD launch MSRP reflects its workstation positioning, but the data shows it delivers performance comparable to a GTX 980 Ti, which is now several generations old. There is no workload in the recorded benchmarks where the Pro W5500X beats the RX 6600M, so the only reason to choose it is system compatibility, not performance.

The verdict is straightforward. If you can use an IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs, the RX 6600M is the clear winner. If you need a desktop card with a specific bus interface and fixed display outputs, the Pro W5500X is the only one that fits, but you are accepting a large performance penalty to get there. The benchmark record shows a 69.7% performance gap in favor of the RX 6600M, and no amount of workstation branding closes that gap.