AMD Radeon Pro W5700 vs AMD Radeon RX 6700 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a comprehensive victory for the AMD Radeon RX 6700 across every single recorded test. Out of ten head-to-head comparisons, the RX 6700 wins all ten, with no tests favoring the Radeon Pro W5700. The margins range from modest single-digit gaps to nearly 60% swings, making the performance hierarchy unambiguous.

The largest advantage appears in PassMark DirectX 11, where the RX 6700 scores 166 against the Pro W5700’s 104, a delta of 59.6%. This is the single biggest percentage gap in the entire comparison and suggests a substantial difference in legacy DirectX 11 workload handling. The RX 6700 also dominates in Geekbench Metal, scoring 122,223 versus 89,557, a 36.5% lead. This is notable because Metal is a low-level graphics API commonly used in professional creative applications, so the RX 6700’s edge there is practically meaningful.

Compute-oriented tests follow the same trend. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6700 posts 97,841 against 74,613, a 31.1% advantage. PassMark GPU Compute shows 8,240 versus 6,495, a 26.9% lead. These numbers indicate that the RX 6700 is not merely faster in rasterization but also in general-purpose GPU workloads, which matters for rendering, simulation, and other compute-heavy tasks.

DirectX 12 and DirectX 10 results are close in percentage terms but still clearly favor the RX 6700. In DirectX 12, the RX 6700 scores 71 versus 54, a 31.5% win. In DirectX 10, it scores 115 versus 88, a 30.7% win. PassMark G3D, a broad gaming-oriented metric, shows 18,931 versus 14,520, a 30.4% difference. Even the smallest margin, PassMark G2D at 4.1% (936 versus 899), still favors the RX 6700, and DirectX 9 shows an 11.1% lead (250 versus 225).

Geekbench Vulkan shows an 18.8% advantage for the RX 6700, with scores of 83,974 versus 70,706. This is a smaller gap than the OpenCL or Metal results, but it still confirms the RX 6700’s superiority in cross-platform graphics workloads. The overall pattern is consistent: the RX 6700 is faster in every API and every workload category recorded, with the largest wins in older DirectX versions and the smallest in 2D and Vulkan tests.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of AMD’s RDNA architecture. The RX 6700 uses RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 22 chip, while the Pro W5700 uses RDNA 1.0 with the Navi 10 chip. Both are built on TSMC’s 7 nm process, but the transistor counts differ significantly: the RX 6700 packs 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die, while the Pro W5700 has 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die. This gives the RX 6700 a higher transistor density of 51.3M per mm² versus 41.0M per mm² for the Pro W5700.

The RX 6700’s newer architecture brings hardware ray tracing support, with 36 dedicated RT cores, whereas the Pro W5700 has no RT cores at all. This is a fundamental feature difference: the RX 6700 can handle ray-traced effects in hardware, while the Pro W5700 cannot. Both cards have the same shading unit count at 2,304 and the same TMU count at 144, and both have 64 ROPs. The core counts are identical, but the clock speeds are not.

The RX 6700 runs at a base clock of 1941 MHz and boosts to 2450 MHz, with a game clock of 2174 MHz. The Pro W5700 is much more conservative, with a base clock of 1400 MHz and a boost of 1880 MHz. This clock advantage translates directly into higher fill rates: the RX 6700 achieves 156.8 GPixel/s and 352.8 GTexel/s, versus 120.3 GPixel/s and 270.7 GTexel/s for the Pro W5700. FP32 throughput is 11.29 TFLOPS for the RX 6700 against 8.663 TFLOPS for the Pro W5700, and FP16 is 22.58 TFLOPS versus 17.33 TFLOPS, both using a 2:1 ratio.

Memory configurations also diverge. The RX 6700 has 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro W5700 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s. The Pro W5700’s wider bus gives it higher bandwidth despite lower memory clocks (1750 MHz versus 2000 MHz, 14 Gbps effective versus 16 Gbps effective). However, the RX 6700 compensates with more capacity and faster memory clocks.

API support differs as well. The RX 6700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Pro W5700 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6700’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support includes features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, which the Pro W5700 lacks.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RX 6700 delivers 11.29 TFLOPS FP32 versus 8.663 TFLOPS for the Pro W5700, a clear advantage in raw compute throughput.

Q: Does the Pro W5700 have any advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The Pro W5700 has 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth thanks to its 256-bit bus, compared to 320.0 GB/s for the RX 6700’s 160-bit bus. However, the RX 6700 has more memory capacity at 10 GB versus 8 GB.

Q: Can the Pro W5700 do hardware ray tracing?

A: No. The Pro W5700 has no RT cores, while the RX 6700 has 36 dedicated RT cores for hardware-accelerated ray tracing.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient per the recorded data?

A: The RX 6700 has a TDP of 175 W and a suggested PSU of 450 W, while the Pro W5700 has a TDP of 205 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The RX 6700 achieves higher performance with lower power draw.

Q: Are the core counts identical?

A: Yes, both cards have 2,304 shading units and 144 TMUs, and both have 64 ROPs. The performance difference comes from clocks, architecture generation, and memory configuration.

Q: Which card has more display outputs?

A: The Pro W5700 has 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C, while the RX 6700 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The Pro W5700 offers more simultaneous display connections.

Specification Differences

• Chip: Navi 22 (RX 6700) versus Navi 10 (Pro W5700)
• Architecture: RDNA 2.0 versus RDNA 1.0
• Transistors: 17,200 million versus 10,300 million
• Die Size: 335 mm² versus 251 mm²
• Transistor Density: 51.3M / mm² versus 41.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1941 MHz versus 1400 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2450 MHz versus 1880 MHz
• Game Clock: 2174 MHz versus null (not specified)
• Memory Clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 10 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 160 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 320.0 GB/s versus 448.0 GB/s
• RT Cores: 36 versus null
• Pixel Rate: 156.8 GPixel/s versus 120.3 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 352.8 GTexel/s versus 270.7 GTexel/s
• FP32: 11.29 TFLOPS versus 8.663 TFLOPS
• FP16: 22.58 TFLOPS versus 17.33 TFLOPS
• TDP: 175 W versus 205 W
• Power Connectors: 1x 8-pin versus 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
• Suggested PSU: 450 W versus 550 W
• DirectX Support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_1)
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C
• Release Date: 2021-06-08 versus 2019-11-18
• Predecessor: Navi versus Radeon Pro Vega

The Verdict

The recorded data makes the choice straightforward for most users. The RX 6700 wins every benchmark in the comparison, with an average benchmark score of 30,433 against 25,726 for the Pro W5700. The RX 6700 sits at the 75th percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro W5700 sits at the 71st percentile. This places the RX 6700 in a higher performance tier overall, and its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA CMP 70HX (0.1% slower), NVIDIA Tesla M60 (0.2% slower), AMD Radeon RX 6800 (1.1% slower), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (1.6% slower). The Pro W5700’s nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (0.1% faster), AMD Radeon RX 6700M (0.4% slower), AMD FirePro D700 (0.4% faster), and AMD FirePro W7100 (0.5% faster).

For gaming, content creation, or general compute workloads, the RX 6700 is the clear choice. It is faster in every API tested, has more VRAM, supports hardware ray tracing, and draws less power. The Pro W5700’s only practical advantages are its higher memory bandwidth and its professional display output configuration with five mini-DisplayPort connections and USB Type-C. For users who need multiple display outputs on a pro workstation, the Pro W5700 has merit, but the RX 6700’s performance lead is decisive in every recorded metric.

The Pro W5700 launched at an MSRP of 799 USD, but this price point is not reflected in its benchmark performance relative to the RX 6700. The RX 6700 outperforms it across the board while consuming less power and offering more modern features. The data suggests that the Pro W5700 is a legacy product from 2019, while the RX 6700 is a newer, faster, and more efficient design from 2021.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6700 wins in every benchmark category, so the use-case split is heavily skewed. For gaming, the RX 6700’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support, hardware ray tracing, and higher clock speeds make it the obvious pick. Its PassMark G3D score of 18,931 versus 14,520 reflects a 30.4% advantage in gaming-oriented workloads. For compute tasks, the RX 6700’s 26.9% lead in PassMark GPU Compute and 31.1% lead in OpenCL make it superior for rendering, simulation, and general GPU compute.

The Pro W5700 wins only in specific scenarios not covered by raw benchmark scores. Its 448.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth is 40% higher than the RX 6700’s 320.0 GB/s, which could benefit bandwidth-bound professional workloads like high-resolution texture streaming or large data sets. Its 256-bit bus also gives it a wider memory path, which may help in certain pro applications. The Pro W5700’s 5x mini-DisplayPort outputs and USB Type-C support make it better suited for multi-monitor professional setups, such as financial trading walls or video walls, where the RX 6700’s four outputs are insufficient.

For DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 legacy workloads, the RX 6700 still wins, but the margins are smaller in DirectX 9 (11.1%) compared to DirectX 11 (59.6%). This suggests the Pro W5700 is relatively less disadvantaged in older APIs, though it still loses. For Vulkan, the RX 6700’s 18.8% lead is the smallest among modern APIs, but it remains a clear win.

In short, the RX 6700 is the better card for virtually every purpose. The Pro W5700’s only genuine advantages are memory bandwidth and display connectivity, which matter for specific professional workflows. Anyone choosing between these two should default to the RX 6700 unless the Pro W5700’s wider bus or extra display outputs are essential to their specific use case.