AMD Radeon Pro W5700X vs AMD Radeon Pro W6600M Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M and the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X occupy different corners of the professional GPU market, and the benchmark data reflects a clear split: the W6600M, a mobile RDNA 2.0 part, dominates in the two shared OpenCL and Vulkan tests, while the W5700X, a desktop Mac-oriented RDNA 1.0 card, counters with a strong Metal result and double the memory. Based on the head-to-head scores, the W6600M leads the W5700X by 28.1% in Geekbench OpenCL and a commanding 49.5% in Geekbench Vulkan, establishing it as the raw compute winner in cross-platform APIs. However, the W5700X posts a 75427 score in Geekbench Metal, a test the W6600M does not have a result for, and its 16 GB of VRAM makes it the better fit for large datasets. The data shows two professional cards with identical 7 nm TSMC manufacturing but divergent architectures, power envelopes, and intended use cases—one optimized for mobility and modern API performance, the other for Apple ecosystems and memory-heavy workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The win distribution is lopsided in the shared test suite, but the picture changes when the full benchmark set is considered. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M wins both head-to-head benchmarks: Geekbench OpenCL at 56140 versus 43810, and Geekbench Vulkan at 67652 versus 45246. These are not marginal victories; the Vulkan gap of 49.5% is nearly double the OpenCL advantage of 28.1%. The W6600M’s RDNA 2.0 architecture with 28 dedicated ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support likely explains its dominance in Vulkan, a modern low-level API that can leverage newer hardware features. In OpenCL, the W6600M’s higher per-clock efficiency and smaller die (237 mm² versus 251 mm²) help it overcome the W5700X’s raw shader count advantage.

The AMD Radeon Pro W5700X, despite losing both shared tests, has its own winning territory. Its Geekbench Metal score of 75427 is the highest single benchmark score in either card’s profile, surpassing the W6600M’s best result (67652 in Vulkan) by 11.5%. This Metal performance is critical because Metal is the native graphics API on Apple platforms, and the W5700X is explicitly designed for Mac Pro systems with its Apple MPX bus interface and display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.0b plus 4x Thunderbolt. The W5700X also wins on memory capacity: 16 GB GDDR6 versus the W6600M’s 8 GB, with a 256-bit bus and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth compared to 128-bit and 224.0 GB/s. For workloads that exceed 8 GB—large 3D scenes, high-resolution textures, or multi-display compositing—the W5700X has a structural advantage that no benchmark in this pack directly measures.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The W6600M sits at the 89th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 61896, while the W5700X ranks at the 87th percentile with 54828. The W6600M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (deltaPct 2.6), meaning the W6600M is only 2.6% behind the flagship consumer RTX 4090 in average score—a remarkable feat for a 90 W mobile part. The W5700X, by contrast, trails the AMD Radeon 8060S by 1.7% and the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB by 1.6%, placing it in solid mid-high desktop territory. In practical terms, the W6600M wins where modern API performance and efficiency matter; the W5700X wins where memory capacity and Apple-specific optimization matter.

Architecture Differences

The two cards share a foundry and process node—both are 7 nm TSMC products—but diverge sharply at the architectural level. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M uses the Navi 23 chip based on RDNA 2.0, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X uses Navi 10 based on RDNA 1.0. This generational gap drives most of the performance differences. RDNA 2.0 brings hardware ray tracing support, reflected in the W6600M’s 28 RT cores, a feature entirely absent from the W5700X, which lists no RT cores. The W6600M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the W5700X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1)—a difference that matters for Windows-based professional applications leveraging DXR or mesh shaders.

Transistor counts and die sizes tell a story of efficiency versus brute force. The W6600M packs 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7M per mm². The W5700X has 10,300 million transistors on a larger 251 mm² die, giving it a lower density of 41.0M per mm². The W6600M achieves more with less silicon, but the W5700X compensates with more execution units: 2560 shading units and 160 texture mapping units versus 1792 and 112, respectively. Both have 64 ROPs, but the W5700X’s higher texture rate (326.4 GTexel/s versus 227.8 GTexel/s) and FP32 throughput (10.44 TFLOPS versus 7.290 TFLOPS) reflect its wider design, even if architectural inefficiencies prevent those advantages from showing in the shared benchmarks.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The W6600M uses a 128-bit bus with 8 GB GDDR6 and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the W5700X uses a 256-bit bus with 16 GB GDDR6 and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth—exactly double the capacity and bandwidth. Both run memory at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed, so the difference is purely bus width and capacity. The W5700X’s 205 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU dwarf the W6600M’s 90 W TDP, reflecting the desktop card’s need for power to feed its wider memory interface and more numerous compute units. The W6600M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the W5700X is a quad-slot card, 305 mm (12 inches) long, using the Apple MPX bus interface.

API support is another distinguishing factor. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the W6600M adds DirectX 12 Ultimate and the W5700X does not. The W5700X’s inclusion of a Geekbench Metal benchmark result—and the W6600M’s absence of one—is the most telling architectural hint: the W5700X is built for Apple’s GPU stack, while the W6600M targets Windows or Linux mobile workstations. Production status is end-of-life for both, but the release dates differ: the W6600M launched on 2021-06-07, while the W5700X launched earlier on 2019-12-10, making the W5700X the older design by roughly 18 months.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks paint a clear picture of the W6600M’s superiority in cross-platform compute. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W6600M scores 56140 against the W5700X’s 43810, a 28.1% advantage. This is notable because OpenCL is a mature, widely supported API that should theoretically favor the card with more compute units—the W5700X has 2560 shading units and 10.44 TFLOPS FP32 versus 1792 units and 7.290 TFLOPS. That the W6600M wins anyway suggests RDNA 2.0’s architectural improvements, such as better instruction scheduling and cache design, more than compensate for the 30% shader deficit. The 7.290 TFLOPS figure is only 69.8% of the W5700X’s 10.44 TFLOPS, yet the W6600M still outperforms it—a direct indictment of the older architecture’s efficiency.

The Vulkan result is even more decisive. The W6600M posts 67652 versus 45246, a 49.5% gap that nearly doubles the OpenCL margin. Vulkan’s lower overhead exposes hardware capabilities more directly, and the W6600M’s RDNA 2.0 features—including ray tracing cores and updated shader execution—deliver outsized gains in this API. The W5700X’s lack of RT cores and older RDNA 1.0 design leaves it at a severe disadvantage in Vulkan workloads, which are increasingly common in professional visualization and game-engine-based rendering. The deltaPct of 49.5% is the largest in either card’s entire rival list, indicating this is not a close contest.

The W5700X’s only benchmark win comes in Geekbench Metal, where it scores 75427. This result has no direct comparison because the W6600M has no Metal benchmark score, but it is importantly the W5700X’s Metal score is 34.5% higher than its own Vulkan score (45246) and 72.2% higher than its OpenCL score (43810). This massive disparity between APIs on the same card underscores how deeply the W5700X is optimized for Apple’s Metal framework—a specialization that the W6600M does not pursue. If the W6600M were tested in Metal, the data does not predict a result, but the architectural differences suggest it would not match the W5700X’s tuned performance.

Beyond the head-to-head, the average benchmark scores contextualize each card. The W6600M averages 61896, which is 12.9% higher than the W5700X’s 54828. The W6600M’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon 8050S, is only 0.3% behind it, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is 2.6% behind—putting the mobile W6600M in rarified company. The W5700X, meanwhile, sits between the AMD Radeon RX 6750 GRE 12 GB (1.6% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 (1.1% behind), a solid but unspectacular position for a desktop card with a 999 USD launch MSRP. These figures confirm the W6600M as the performance leader in shared tests, with the W5700X’s value concentrated in Metal-specific and memory-heavy scenarios.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M if your priority is cross-platform compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan. The data is unambiguous: it wins Geekbench OpenCL by 28.1% and Geekbench Vulkan by 49.5%, and its average benchmark score of 61896 places it at the 89th percentile, just 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon 8050S and 2.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090. Its 90 W TDP, IGP form factor, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for mobile workstations where efficiency matters. It also brings modern features like 28 RT cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and a higher transistor density (46.7M per mm²), ensuring better forward compatibility with newer APIs and workloads. If you run Windows or Linux professional applications that use Vulkan or OpenCL, the W6600M is the clear winner.

Choose the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X if you work in Apple’s ecosystem or need more than 8 GB of VRAM. Its Geekbench Metal score of 75427 is the single highest benchmark result in this comparison, and its Apple MPX bus interface, 1x HDMI 2.0b plus 4x Thunderbolt display outputs, and quad-slot 305 mm design are purpose-built for Mac Pro systems. The 16 GB GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 448.0 GB/s bandwidth provides twice the capacity and bandwidth of the W6600M, which is critical for large simulation meshes, high-resolution textures, or multi-GPU compositing that exceeds the 8 GB limit. Its 205 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU reflect a desktop-class power envelope, and its 10.44 TFLOPS FP32 and 326.4 GTexel/s texture rate are higher than the W6600M’s respective 7.290 TFLOPS and 227.8 GTexel/s—figures that may matter in Metal-optimized workloads where the architecture’s strengths are better utilized.

There is no universal winner. The W6600M dominates in the two benchmarks where both cards compete, but the W5700X wins the memory capacity war and the Metal-specific performance contest. The W6600M’s 89th percentile ranking versus the W5700X’s 87th is a narrow edge, but the deltaPct values tell a different story: the W6600M is within 0.3% of the Radeon 8050S and ahead of the RTX 4090, while the W5700X trails the Radeon 8060S by 1.7%. For users standardized on OpenCL or Vulkan, the W6600M is the only rational choice. For Mac Pro owners or those with memory-hungry workloads, the W5700X’s 16 GB capacity and Metal optimization outweigh its losses in cross-platform tests. The W5700X also carries a 999 USD launch MSRP, a fact that may inform purchasing decisions, though this analysis does not weigh pricing.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, with an average benchmark score of 61896, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro W5700X’s 54828—a 12.9% difference.

Q: How does the W6600M compare to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090?

A: The W6600M is 2.6% ahead of the RTX 4090 in average benchmark score, according to the nearestRivals data, with the W6600M at 61896 and the RTX 4090 at 60347.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards in a shared benchmark?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the W6600M scores 67652 versus the W5700X’s 45246, a deltaPct of 49.5%.

Q: Does the W5700X support ray tracing?

A: No, the W5700X lists no RT cores in its specifications, while the W6600M has 28 RT cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The W5700X has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 256-bit bus and 448.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the W6600M has 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth—exactly half in capacity and bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher score in Geekbench Metal?

A: The W5700X scores 75427 in Geekbench Metal, but the W6600M has no Metal benchmark score in the data, so no direct comparison is possible.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro W6600M | AMD Radeon Pro W5700X |

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

| Chip | Navi 23 | Navi 10 |

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Mobile (W6x00M) | Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Series) |

| Transistors | 11,060 million | 10,300 million |

| Die Size | 237 mm² | 251 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 46.7M / mm² | 41.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1224 MHz | 1243 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2034 MHz | 2040 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 112 | 160 |

| RT Cores | 28 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 130.2 GPixel/s | 130.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 227.8 GTexel/s | 326.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 7.290 TFLOPS | 10.44 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 14.58 TFLOPS (2:1) | 20.89 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 90 W | 205 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Quad-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

| Suggested PSU | null | 550 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | Apple MPX |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt |

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

| Release Date | 2021-06-07 | 2019-12-10 |

| Launch MSRP | null | 999 USD |