AMD Radeon Pro W5700 vs AMD Radeon RX 6800M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a clear split between these two AMD GPUs. The Radeon RX 6800M wins six of the ten head-to-head tests, while the Radeon Pro W5700 takes four. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

In Geekbench testing, the RX 6800M dominates decisively. Its Vulkan score of 94,766 beats the Pro W5700's 70,706 by 34%, the single largest victory in either direction. The Metal test shows a 27% advantage (113,721 versus 89,557), and OpenCL results favor the mobile part by 17.4% (87,621 versus 74,613). These are substantial gaps, indicating that the RX 6800M's compute architecture delivers meaningfully higher throughput in modern API workloads.

DirectX results follow a similar pattern, though with smaller margins. The RX 6800M leads by 14.8% in DirectX 10 (101 versus 88), by 22.1% in DirectX 11 (127 versus 104), and by 20.4% in DirectX 12 (65 versus 54). The consistency across these three API generations suggests the RX 6800M's hardware is better suited to contemporary graphics workloads, regardless of the specific DirectX version.

The Pro W5700 fights back in legacy and productivity-oriented tests. Its DirectX 9 score of 225 surpasses the RX 6800M's 147 by 34.7%, the largest single-test margin in the entire comparison. The 2D graphics test shows a 40.2% advantage for the Pro W5700 (899 versus 538), which is notable given that this metric often reflects memory bandwidth and rasterization efficiency rather than raw shading power. The Pro W5700 also wins the overall 3D test (14,520 versus 13,261, an 8.7% margin) and the GPU compute test (6,495 versus 5,032, a 22.5% margin).

The overall average benchmark score favors the RX 6800M at 28,874 versus 25,726 for the Pro W5700, a difference of roughly 12%. The RX 6800M sits at the 74th percentile among all GPUs, while the Pro W5700 ranks at the 71st percentile. In the nearest-rival comparison, the RX 6800M's closest competitor is the Radeon RX 570 with a delta of just 0.4%, while the Pro W5700 sits within 0.1% of the GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile. These proximity figures show that while the two cards occupy similar tiers in the overall hierarchy, their performance profiles diverge sharply depending on the workload.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6800M is the clear choice for modern, API-forward workloads. Its wins in Vulkan, Metal, and OpenCL point to strong compute throughput and efficient execution of contemporary rendering paths. The DirectX 10, 11, and 12 results reinforce this: the mobile GPU maintains a lead across every modern DirectX iteration, which makes it the better fit for current-generation gaming and real-time rendering tasks. The 34% Vulkan advantage, in particular, suggests that games leveraging Vulkan will see a substantial performance uplift on the RX 6800M.

The Pro W5700, by contrast, excels in legacy compatibility and specific productivity scenarios. Its DirectX 9 score is nearly 35% higher, which matters for older software titles or compatibility testing environments. The 2D performance advantage is even larger at 40.2%, indicating that the Pro W5700 handles desktop compositing, image manipulation, and other 2D-heavy workloads with greater efficiency. The GPU compute win of 22.5% is more surprising given the RX 6800M's higher raw FP32 throughput, but the PassMark compute test may favor the Pro W5700's memory subsystem and driver optimizations for professional workloads.

For users prioritizing current-generation gaming, ray tracing, or cross-platform graphics APIs, the RX 6800M is the stronger part. For users dealing with legacy DirectX 9 applications, 2D-centric productivity suites, or compute tasks that align with the Pro W5700's optimization profile, the professional card holds a measurable edge. The RX 6800M's overall average score advantage of about 12% gives it the broader appeal, but the Pro W5700's specialized strengths should not be dismissed.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different generations of AMD's RDNA architecture. The RX 6800M uses RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 22 chip, while the Pro W5700 relies on RDNA 1.0 with the Navi 10 chip. Both are built on TSMC's 7 nm process, but the transistor counts differ substantially: the RX 6800M packs 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die, while the Pro W5700 uses 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die. This translates to a transistor density of 51.3 million per square millimeter for the RX 6800M versus 41.0 million for the Pro W5700.

The RX 6800M's newer architecture brings hardware ray tracing cores, with 40 RT cores present. The Pro W5700 has no dedicated RT cores, reflecting its RDNA 1.0 design. Shading unit counts also favor the RX 6800M: 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, compared to 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs on the Pro W5700. The RX 6800M's clock speeds are significantly higher, with a base of 2,116 MHz and a boost of 2,390 MHz, against 1,400 MHz base and 1,880 MHz boost for the Pro W5700.

Memory configurations differ in capacity and bus width. The RX 6800M uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 384.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro W5700 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a wider 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the RX 6800M's faster memory clock (2,000 MHz versus 1,750 MHz) partially compensates, but the Pro W5700 still holds the bandwidth advantage. Pixel and texture rates follow the clock speeds: the RX 6800M achieves 153.0 GPixel/s and 382.4 GTexel/s, while the Pro W5700 manages 120.3 GPixel/s and 270.7 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 12.24 TFLOPS for the RX 6800M versus 8.663 TFLOPS for the Pro W5700.

Power and physical characteristics diverge as well. The RX 6800M is an integrated mobile GPU with a 145 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for laptop integration. The Pro W5700 is a dual-slot desktop card with a 205 W TDP, requiring both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, plus a 550 W suggested power supply. The Pro W5700 measures 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with five mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and one USB Type-C port. The RX 6800M's display outputs are described as portable-device dependent.

API support also differs. The RX 6800M 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, but the RX 6800M's higher DirectX feature level gives it an edge for future-proofing in the latest gaming titles.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800M records an average benchmark score of 28,874, compared to 25,726 for the AMD Radeon Pro W5700, a difference of approximately 12%.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The RX 6800M scores 94,766 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 34% ahead of the Pro W5700's 70,706, making it the largest single-test margin in the comparison.

Q: Does the Pro W5700 win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the Pro W5700 wins four tests: DirectX 9 (by 34.7%), 2D graphics (by 40.2%), overall 3D (by 8.7%), and GPU compute (by 22.5%).

Q: What is the transistor difference between the two chips?

A: The RX 6800M's Navi 22 chip contains 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die, while the Pro W5700's Navi 10 chip has 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: The RX 6800M includes 40 ray tracing cores, while the Pro W5700 has no dedicated RT cores, reflecting its older RDNA 1.0 architecture.

Q: How do memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Pro W5700 offers 448.0 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the RX 6800M provides 384.0 GB/s over a 192-bit bus, despite having a larger 12 GB memory capacity versus 8 GB.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6800M | AMD Radeon Pro W5700 |

|----------------|---------------------|----------------------|

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Chip | Navi 22 | Navi 10 |

| Transistors | 17,200 million | 10,300 million |

| Die Size | 335 mm² | 251 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 51.3M / mm² | 41.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2,116 MHz | 1,400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2,390 MHz | 1,880 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2,300 MHz | None |

| Memory Clock | 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) | 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 384.0 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2,560 | 2,304 |

| TMUs | 160 | 144 |

| RT Cores | 40 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 153.0 GPixel/s | 120.3 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 382.4 GTexel/s | 270.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 12.24 TFLOPS | 8.663 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 24.47 TFLOPS (2:1) | 17.33 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 145 W | 205 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 550 W |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 5x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |

| Length | None | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Height | None | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2021-05-30 | 2019-11-18 |

| Predecessor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Vega |

| Launch MSRP | None | 799 USD |

| Average Benchmark Score | 28,874 | 25,726 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 74 | 71 |