AMD Radeon Pro W5700X vs AMD Radeon PRO W6600 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 posts an average benchmark score of 81,995, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X averages 54,828. That places the W6600 in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs, versus the 87th percentile for the W5700X.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the head-to-head tests?

A: The W6600 wins all three recorded tests. The biggest margin is in Vulkan, where it leads by 73.3%. In OpenCL it leads by 67.8%, and in Metal by 24.7%.

Q: Do the two cards share the same memory type?

A: Yes, both use GDDR6 memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). However, the W5700X has 16 GB on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the W6600 has 8 GB on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The W6600 has 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, giving a density of 46.7 million per mm². The W5700X has 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, with a density of 41.0 million per mm².

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The W6600 has a TDP of 100 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W, whereas the W5700X has a TDP of 205 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the W6600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The W5700X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of AMD's RDNA architecture. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 is built on RDNA 2.0, using the Navi 23 chip, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X uses the older RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 10 chip. Both are fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, but the design philosophies diverge significantly.

The W6600 belongs to the "Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series)" generation, whereas the W5700X is part of the "Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Series)". This generational gap explains several feature differences. The W6600 includes 28 ray tracing cores, which are entirely absent from the W5700X. The W5700X has no ray tracing hardware at all, reflecting the pre-RDNA 2.0 era.

Shading unit counts differ notably. The W5700X has 2,560 shading units and 160 texture mapping units, while the W6600 has 1,792 shading units and 112 TMUs. Both cards share 64 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders, the W6600 achieves a higher peak FP32 throughput in relative terms to its transistor budget? Actually, the raw numbers show the W5700X leads in FP32: 10.44 TFLOPS versus 9.247 TFLOPS for the W6600. The W5700X also leads in texture rate at 326.4 GTexel/s versus 289.0 GTexel/s. However, the W6600 has a higher pixel rate at 165.1 GPixel/s versus 130.6 GPixel/s, driven by its much higher boost clock.

Clock speeds are a major architectural differentiator. The W6600 runs at a base clock of 2331 MHz and boosts to 2580 MHz. The W5700X starts lower at 1243 MHz base and boosts to 2040 MHz. This clock advantage helps the W6600 compensate for its smaller compute unit count in several workloads.

The W6600 also supports a newer API feature set. It lists DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, matching the W5700X's Vulkan 1.4 but exceeding its DirectX 12 (12_1) support. Both cards share OpenGL 4.6. The W5700X uses an Apple MPX bus interface, which is a proprietary connector for Mac Pro systems, whereas the W6600 uses standard PCIe 4.0 x8.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a decisive sweep for the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 across all three Geekbench tests. The most lopsided result appears in Vulkan, where the W6600 scores 78,428 against the W5700X's 45,246, a delta of 73.3%. This indicates the W6600's RDNA 2.0 architecture handles the Vulkan API substantially better, likely due to its newer feature set and higher clock speeds.

In OpenCL, the W6600 posts 73,514 versus 43,810 for the W5700X, a 67.8% advantage. This is a wide margin that suggests the W6600's compute efficiency per clock is significantly higher, despite the W5700X having 2,560 shading units versus 1,792. The W6600's boost clock of 2580 MHz versus 2040 MHz appears to be a decisive factor in raw compute workloads.

The Metal test shows the smallest gap, but it still favors the W6600 substantially. The W6600 scores 94,042, while the W5700X manages 75,427, giving the W6600 a 24.7% lead. Metal is the native API for Apple platforms, and the W5700X is designed for Mac Pro systems with its Apple MPX interface. Yet even in this optimized environment, the older architecture cannot match the W6600's performance.

Looking at the broader database context, the W6600's average score of 81,995 places it just ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X (80,959, delta of 1.3%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (79,842, delta of 2.7%). The W5700X's average of 54,828 sits near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 (54,247, delta of 1.1%) and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (55,698, delta of -1.6%). This means the W6600 is not merely beating the W5700X; it is performing in a completely different tier, roughly 50% faster in aggregate.

The wins tally reflects this dominance: the W6600 wins 3 out of 3 head-to-head tests, with the W5700X winning none. There is no recorded scenario where the W5700X outperforms the W6600 in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process nodes are identical (7 nm, TSMC), but the transistor counts and die sizes diverge. The W6600 has 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, while the W5700X has 10,300 million on a 251 mm² die. The W6600 achieves a higher transistor density of 46.7 million per mm² versus 41.0 million.

Clock speeds show the W6600 with a base of 2331 MHz and boost of 2580 MHz, versus the W5700X's 1243 MHz base and 2040 MHz boost. Both use the same memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), but the memory configurations are very different: the W6600 has 8 GB on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the W5700X has 16 GB on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units differ as well. The W6600 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The W5700X has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and no ray tracing cores. Both have 64 ROPs. The W6600's pixel rate is 165.1 GPixel/s versus 130.6 for the W5700X, but the W5700X leads in texture rate at 326.4 GTexel/s versus 289.0. FP32 and FP16 throughput both favor the W5700X: 10.44 TFLOPS versus 9.247 TFLOPS, and 20.89 TFLOPS versus 18.49 TFLOPS.

Power requirements are strikingly different. The W6600 has a TDP of 100 W with a single 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The W5700X has a TDP of 205 W, no listed power connector, and a 550 W suggested PSU. The W5700X is also a quad-slot card, while the W6600 is single-slot. Physical dimensions reflect this: the W5700X is 305 mm (12 inches) long, the W6600 is 241 mm (9.5 inches).

The bus interface differs completely. The W6600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the W5700X uses Apple MPX. Display outputs are also different: the W6600 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, the W5700X has 1x HDMI 2.0b plus 4x Thunderbolt. DirectX support differs, with the W6600 at 12 Ultimate (12_2) and the W5700X at 12 (12_1). The W5700X has a larger memory pool and wider bus, which may help in specific memory-bound scenarios, but the W6600 counters with higher clocks, newer architecture, and ray tracing capability.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X in every recorded benchmark, with margins ranging from 24.7% in Metal to 73.3% in Vulkan. The average benchmark score of 81,995 versus 54,828 places them in different performance classes entirely. The W6600's percentile ranking of 92 versus 87 further confirms that the W6600 sits higher in the overall GPU distribution.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the W6600 is the clear choice based on the recorded scores. Its higher clock speeds and RDNA 2.0 architecture deliver superior results in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, which are common in professional rendering and compute tasks. The W6600 also offers ray tracing support, which the W5700X completely lacks, making it more future-proof for applications that adopt DirectX 12 Ultimate features.

The W5700X does have advantages in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 16 GB frame buffer and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth double the W6600's 8 GB and 224.0 GB/s. For workloads that are strictly memory-bound, such as very large datasets or high-resolution textures that exceed 8 GB, the W5700X may hold an edge. However, no benchmark in the database captures such a scenario, and the recorded tests all favor the W6600.

The W6600 is also far more power-efficient, with a TDP of 100 W versus 205 W. This means lower system power requirements and potentially quieter operation, particularly relevant for workstation builds. The single-slot design of the W6600 versus the quad-slot W5700X also allows for more compact systems or multiple GPU configurations.

Given the end-of-life status of both cards, the choice comes down to workload characteristics. The W6600 wins on compute performance, ray tracing, and efficiency. The W5700X wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. For most benchmarked scenarios, the W6600 is the superior product.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 wins in all three recorded benchmark categories: Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan. Its largest advantage is in Vulkan, where it leads by 73.3%, followed by OpenCL at 67.8% and Metal at 24.7%. This suggests the W6600 is particularly strong in cross-platform graphics APIs and compute workloads. The presence of 28 ray tracing cores gives it a clear edge in any application that uses DirectX 12 Ultimate features, a capability the W5700X cannot offer at all.

The W6600 also wins on efficiency metrics. Its 100 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU make it suitable for smaller power supplies and lower thermal envelopes. The single-slot design is another practical win, enabling denser workstation builds. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface is standard and widely compatible, versus the proprietary Apple MPX connector on the W5700X. For users building custom workstations outside of Mac Pro chassis, the W6600 is far more flexible.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus delivers 448.0 GB/s, exactly double the W6600's 8 GB and 224.0 GB/s. This makes the W5700X the better option for workloads that require large frame buffers, such as 8K video editing, massive 3D scenes, or machine learning models that need to reside entirely in GPU memory. Its higher shading unit count (2,560 versus 1,792) and texture rate (326.4 GTexel/s versus 289.0) may also provide advantages in texture-heavy workloads, though the recorded benchmarks do not reflect this.

The W5700X also wins on raw FP32 throughput, posting 10.44 TFLOPS versus 9.247 TFLOPS, and FP16 at 20.89 TFLOPS versus 18.49 TFLOPS. For compute tasks that are not API-bound, this theoretical advantage could translate to faster processing in specific applications. Its Apple MPX interface and Thunderbolt outputs make it the only choice for Mac Pro systems that require native integration. The quad-slot design, while bulky, is a feature of the Mac Pro form factor.

In summary, the W6600 is the winner for general compute, modern API support, ray tracing, and efficiency. The W5700X remains relevant only for memory-hungry workloads and Mac-specific deployments. The benchmark data does not show any scenario where the W5700X beats the W6600 in head-to-head testing, so the choice for most users is clear.