AMD Radeon Pro W5700 vs AMD Radeon RX 6700M Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 and AMD Radeon RX 6700M are two very different interpretations of AMD graphics, separated by a generation of architecture and a world of intended use. The data shows they are remarkably close in overall average benchmark score — the Pro W5700 sits at 25726 and the RX 6700M at 25633, a delta of only 0.4% — yet their individual test results tell a story of divergent strengths that hinge on software APIs, memory design, and feature sets. This analysis breaks down where each card commands the field and where it cedes ground, using only the benchmark data and specifications provided.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear split identity. The AMD Radeon RX 6700M is the modern compute and graphics API champion, winning 6 of the 10 head-to-head benchmarks, including decisive victories in Geekbench Vulkan (90816 vs 70706, a 22.1% lead) and Passmark DirectX 11 (129 vs 104, a 19.4% lead). If your workload leans on Vulkan, DirectX 11, or DirectX 12, the RX 6700M is the data-backed choice, as it also wins DirectX 12 by 16.9% (65 vs 54) and OpenCL by 3.9% (77666 vs 74613).

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700, however, is the legacy API and 2D performance specialist. It wins Passmark DirectX 9 by a massive 45.2% (225 vs 155), Passmark G2D by 62% (899 vs 555), and even takes Passmark G3D by 7.3% (14520 vs 13536) despite losing the newer API tests. Its Passmark GPU Compute score of 6495 is 25.1% higher than the RX 6700M’s 5191, suggesting raw compute throughput in certain legacy contexts remains strong. For users running older DirectX 9 applications or needing superior 2D desktop responsiveness, the Pro W5700 is the winner.

The tie-breaker comes from the overall percentile rankings: both cards sit at the 71st percentile of all GPUs, meaning they are statistically equivalent in aggregate performance. The choice is not about which is faster overall, but which set of API strengths matches your specific software stack. The RX 6700M’s modern feature set, including 36 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, makes it the forward-looking pick, while the Pro W5700’s dominance in legacy and 2D tests makes it a specialist for older or professional 2D-heavy workflows.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is a full generation of RDNA design. The Pro W5700 is built on RDNA 1.0, using the Navi 10 chip, while the RX 6700M uses RDNA 2.0 on the larger Navi 22 chip. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: the RX 6700M packs 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die, versus 10,300 million on a 251 mm² die for the Pro W5700. This results in a transistor density of 51.3M / mm² for the RX 6700M versus 41.0M / mm² for the Pro W5700, indicating the newer design is more densely packed.

The core configuration is identical in shading units (2304), texture mapping units (144), and render output units (64), but the RX 6700M adds 36 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro W5700. This is a fundamental capability difference, as the RX 6700M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) while the Pro W5700 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Clock speeds also favor the RX 6700M, with a boost clock of 2400 MHz and a game clock of 2300 MHz, compared to the Pro W5700’s 1880 MHz boost. The RX 6700M’s higher clocks drive its superior pixel rate (153.6 GPixel/s vs 120.3 GPixel/s), texture rate (345.6 GTexel/s vs 270.7 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (11.06 TFLOPS vs 8.663 TFLOPS).

Memory architecture is a study in trade-offs. The Pro W5700 uses a 256-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6, delivering 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 14 Gbps effective. The RX 6700M instead uses a narrower 160-bit bus with 10 GB of GDDR6, but runs it faster at 16 Gbps effective, yielding 320.0 GB/s. The RX 6700M has 2 GB more capacity but 128 GB/s less bandwidth. The Pro W5700’s 256-bit bus is the likely reason it wins the G2D and G3D tests, where bandwidth matters for texture-heavy 2D operations and older rasterization workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6700M wins in all modern graphics APIs tested. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 90816 is 22.1% ahead of the Pro W5700’s 70706, a massive margin that reflects the RDNA 2.0 architecture’s improved Vulkan efficiency. It also leads in DirectX 11 (129 vs 104, +19.4%), DirectX 12 (65 vs 54, +16.9%), and DirectX 10 (92 vs 88, +4.3%). In compute, it wins Geekbench OpenCL by 3.9% (77666 vs 74613) and Geekbench Metal by 2.6% (91911 vs 89557). The RX 6700M is the clear choice for any modern gaming, DirectX 12 Ultimate, or Vulkan-based rendering workload.

The Pro W5700 wins in legacy and 2D-oriented tests. Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 225 crushes the RX 6700M’s 155 by 45.2%, indicating far better compatibility or optimization for older DirectX 9 titles. The G2D score of 899 vs 555 is a 62% landslide, pointing to superior 2D desktop rendering, likely due to its higher memory bandwidth. It also wins Passmark G3D (14520 vs 13536, +7.3%) and Passmark GPU Compute (6495 vs 5191, +25.1%). The G3D win is notable because it aggregates multiple DirectX tests, suggesting the Pro W5700’s overall rasterization throughput in mixed API workloads is still competitive, while its compute lead in Passmark indicates a strong legacy compute engine.

The data implies the Pro W5700 is not obsolete; it simply excels in a different era of software. Its higher bandwidth and legacy API optimization make it a specialist for 2D CAD, older game compatibility, or compute tasks that favor its specific architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5700 has an average benchmark score of 25726, which is 0.4% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6700M’s 25633. Both cards are tied at the 71st percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Why does the RX 6700M win the Vulkan benchmark by such a large margin?

A: The RX 6700M scores 90816 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 70706 for the Pro W5700, a delta of 22.1%. This is likely due to its RDNA 2.0 architecture, which includes 36 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and its higher boost clock of 2400 MHz versus 1880 MHz.

Q: Which card is better for older DirectX 9 games?

A: The Pro W5700 is overwhelmingly better, scoring 225 in Passmark DirectX 9 versus 155 for the RX 6700M, a 45.2% advantage. The RX 6700M’s modern architecture appears to sacrifice legacy DirectX 9 performance.

Q: Does the RX 6700M have more memory bandwidth?

A: No. The Pro W5700 has 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth via a 256-bit bus, while the RX 6700M has 320.0 GB/s over a 160-bit bus. However, the RX 6700M has 10 GB of memory versus 8 GB, and its memory runs at a faster 16 Gbps effective versus 14 Gbps.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient according to the data?

A: The RX 6700M has a lower TDP of 135 W versus 205 W for the Pro W5700. It also achieves higher FP32 throughput (11.06 TFLOPS vs 8.663 TFLOPS), indicating better performance per watt.

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw compute performance?

A: The RX 6700M wins Geekbench OpenCL (77666 vs 74613, +3.9%), but the Pro W5700 wins Passmark GPU Compute (6495 vs 5191, +25.1%). The results depend on the specific compute benchmark and API.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the RX 6700M is in Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 90816 against the Pro W5700’s 70706. This 22.1% delta is the single biggest gap in the entire comparison, underscoring the RDNA 2.0 architecture’s superior Vulkan implementation. The RX 6700M also takes DirectX 11 by 19.4% (129 vs 104) and DirectX 12 by 16.9% (65 vs 54), showing a consistent lead across modern rasterization APIs. Its Geekbench Metal score of 91911 is 2.6% higher than the Pro W5700’s 89557, and its OpenCL score of 77666 is 3.9% higher than 74613. Even in DirectX 10, where the margin is smallest at 4.3% (92 vs 88), the RX 6700M still comes out ahead.

The Pro W5700’s wins are equally decisive in their categories. Its Passmark G2D score of 899 is 62% higher than the RX 6700M’s 555, a staggering margin that highlights the importance of its 448.0 GB/s bandwidth for 2D operations. In Passmark DirectX 9, it scores 225 versus 155, a 45.2% lead that suggests the Pro W5700 retains superior legacy hardware acceleration. The Pro W5700 also takes Passmark GPU Compute by 25.1% (6495 vs 5191), and Passmark G3D by 7.3% (14520 vs 13536). These wins indicate that in aggregate rasterization and legacy compute, the Pro W5700’s older architecture still holds significant advantages.

The pattern is consistent: the RX 6700M dominates everything modern, while the Pro W5700 dominates everything legacy or bandwidth-sensitive. The single exception is Passmark G3D, where the Pro W5700 wins despite losing the DirectX 11 and 12 subtests — this suggests its DirectX 9 and 10 performance is strong enough to pull the aggregate score higher.

Specification Differences

The most consequential difference is the architecture: the Pro W5700 uses RDNA 1.0 while the RX 6700M uses RDNA 2.0. This drives the presence of 36 ray tracing cores in the RX 6700M, which the Pro W5700 lacks entirely. The DirectX support reflects this: the RX 6700M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus the Pro W5700’s DirectX 12 (12_1).

The chips differ significantly. The Pro W5700 uses Navi 10 with 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, while the RX 6700M uses Navi 22 with 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die. Transistor density is higher on the RX 6700M at 51.3M / mm² versus 41.0M / mm².

Clock speeds favor the RX 6700M: base clock 1489 MHz vs 1400 MHz, boost clock 2400 MHz vs 1880 MHz, and a game clock of 2300 MHz (the Pro W5700 has no game clock listed). Memory clocks also differ, with the RX 6700M at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus the Pro W5700’s 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is a major divergence: the Pro W5700 has 8 GB on a 256-bit bus providing 448.0 GB/s, while the RX 6700M has 10 GB on a 160-bit bus providing 320.0 GB/s. The Pro W5700 has a 205 W TDP and requires dual-slot cooling with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors and a 550 W suggested PSU. The RX 6700M is an IGP with a 135 W TDP and no power connectors.

The Pro W5700 offers 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C outputs, while the RX 6700M’s outputs are portable device dependent. The Pro W5700 is a physical card at 267 mm length and 111 mm height, while the RX 6700M has no listed dimensions. The Pro W5700 has a launch MSRP of 799 USD; the RX 6700M has no launch MSRP listed. Both use PCIe 4.0 x16 interfaces and support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The Pro W5700 released on 2019-11-18, while the RX 6700M released later on 2021-05-30.