AMD Radeon PRO W6400 vs AMD Radeon RX 6550M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6550M wins both recorded head-to-head tests against the AMD Radeon PRO W6400. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6550M scores 42,536 versus 35,027 for the PRO W6400, a 21.4% advantage. The gap widens in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 6550M posts 50,867 against 39,286, a 29.5% lead. These are substantial margins, indicating a clear performance hierarchy between the two mobile Navi 24 parts.

Looking at the average benchmark score, the RX 6550M sits at 46,702, while the PRO W6400 trails at 37,157. This places the RX 6550M in the 85th percentile of all GPUs in the database, compared to the 80th percentile for the PRO W6400. The delta between their average scores is roughly 25.7%, consistent with the individual test results. The RX 6550M's nearest rivals include the Intel Arc A530M at 46,614 (a 0.2% difference) and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46,601 (also 0.2%), meaning it sits in a tight cluster of comparable mobile GPUs. The PRO W6400, by contrast, is flanked by the AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 at 37,507 (0.9% below) and the NVIDIA Tesla P4 at 37,628 (1.3% below), placing it in the same bandwidth as desktop cards from a previous generation.

The Vulkan result deserves particular attention. A 29.5% margin in Vulkan suggests the RX 6550M scales better with modern graphics APIs, likely due to its higher shading unit count and clock speeds. In OpenCL, the 21.4% gap is still decisive but slightly narrower, possibly reflecting compute workloads that saturate memory bandwidth, where the PRO W6400's lower bandwidth is a limiting factor. Across both tests, the data shows no scenario where the PRO W6400 overtakes the RX 6550M; the wins tally is 2 for the RX 6550M, 0 for the PRO W6400.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental silicon: the Navi 24 chip, built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process. Transistor counts are identical at 5,400 million, and die size matches at 107 mm², yielding the same transistor density of 50.5M per mm². The foundry is TSMC for both. However, the implementation diverges significantly in how the chip is configured and clocked.

The RX 6550M is a mobile-first part with a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2840 MHz, plus a game clock of 2560 MHz. The PRO W6400, aimed at professional workstation duties, runs a base clock of 2039 MHz but a lower boost of 2321 MHz, with no game clock listed. This clock difference is substantial: the RX 6550M's boost is 519 MHz higher, which directly translates to higher throughput across all compute units.

The shader configuration differs as well. The RX 6550M packs 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with 16 ray tracing cores. The PRO W6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs, but only 12 ray tracing cores. That is a 256-shader deficit for the PRO W6400, or 25% fewer shading units. Pixel rate tells the story: the RX 6550M achieves 90.88 GPixel/s versus 74.27 GPixel/s for the PRO W6400. Texture rate is similarly skewed, with the RX 6550M at 181.8 GTexel/s against 111.4 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another differentiator. Both use 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, but the RX 6550M runs memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for 144.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the PRO W6400 operates at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for 128.0 GB/s. That is a 16 GB/s bandwidth advantage for the RX 6550M, which matters in bandwidth-bound scenarios. The FP32 throughput reflects the combined clock and shader advantages: the RX 6550M delivers 5.816 TFLOPS, the PRO W6400 only 3.565 TFLOPS. FP16 follows the same pattern at 11.63 TFLOPS versus 7.130 TFLOPS, both using 2:1 ratio.

Power profiles differ markedly. The RX 6550M has a TDP of 80 W and is listed as IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, meaning it draws from the motherboard. The PRO W6400 is a single-slot card with a 50 W TDP, also requiring no power connectors, but the database lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RX 6550M has no suggested PSU field. Both use PCIe 4.0 x4 interfaces, which is a narrow bus but sufficient for these entry-level parts. Display outputs differ: the RX 6550M is portable device dependent, while the PRO W6400 offers 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, reflecting its workstation orientation.

API support is identical: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has tensor cores. The release dates are close, with the PRO W6400 launching on January 18, 2022, and the RX 6550M on January 3, 2023, but the production status diverges: the RX 6550M is active, while the PRO W6400 is end-of-life. Predecessors also differ: the RX 6550M follows Polaris Mobile, the PRO W6400 follows Radeon Pro Vega.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The RX 6550M. Its FP32 throughput is 5.816 TFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS for the PRO W6400, a 63% advantage, driven by more shading units (1024 vs 768) and higher boost clocks (2840 MHz vs 2321 MHz).

Q: Do they use the same chip?

A: Yes, both are built on the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, 5,400 million transistors, and a 107 mm² die size on TSMC's 6 nm process. The difference lies in configuration: the RX 6550M has 16 ray tracing cores and 1024 shading units, while the PRO W6400 has 12 ray tracing cores and 768 shading units.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 6550M offers 144.0 GB/s bandwidth with 18 Gbps effective memory speed, while the PRO W6400 has 128.0 GB/s with 16 Gbps effective. Both have 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, but the RX 6550M's faster memory gives it a 12.5% bandwidth edge.

Q: Which one is more power efficient?

A: The PRO W6400 consumes less power at 50 W TDP versus 80 W for the RX 6550M, but it also delivers far less performance. The RX 6550M produces 72.7 GFLOPS per watt based on FP32, while the PRO W6400 produces 71.3 GFLOPS per watt, making them nearly identical in efficiency per watt.

Q: Why does the RX 6550M win in Vulkan by a larger margin than OpenCL?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6550M leads by 29.5%, while in OpenCL it leads by 21.4%. The larger Vulkan gap likely stems from the RX 6550M's higher shader count and clock speeds scaling better with modern API driver paths, though the exact cause is not in the data.

Q: Is the PRO W6400 still in production?

A: No, the PRO W6400 is listed as end-of-life, while the RX 6550M is active. The PRO W6400 launched nearly a year earlier on January 18, 2022, versus January 3, 2023 for the RX 6550M.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Generation: RX 6550M is Navi Mobile (RX 6000M); PRO W6400 is Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series)
• Base clock: 2000 MHz (RX 6550M) vs 2039 MHz (PRO W6400)
• Boost clock: 2840 MHz (RX 6550M) vs 2321 MHz (PRO W6400)
• Game clock: 2560 MHz (RX 6550M) vs none (PRO W6400)
• Memory clock: 2250 MHz / 18 Gbps effective (RX 6550M) vs 2000 MHz / 16 Gbps effective (PRO W6400)
• Memory bandwidth: 144.0 GB/s (RX 6550M) vs 128.0 GB/s (PRO W6400)
• Shading units: 1024 (RX 6550M) vs 768 (PRO W6400)
• Texture mapping units: 64 (RX 6550M) vs 48 (PRO W6400)
• Ray tracing cores: 16 (RX 6550M) vs 12 (PRO W6400)
• Pixel rate: 90.88 GPixel/s (RX 6550M) vs 74.27 GPixel/s (PRO W6400)
• Texture rate: 181.8 GTexel/s (RX 6550M) vs 111.4 GTexel/s (PRO W6400)
• FP32 performance: 5.816 TFLOPS (RX 6550M) vs 3.565 TFLOPS (PRO W6400)
• FP16 performance: 11.63 TFLOPS (RX 6550M) vs 7.130 TFLOPS (PRO W6400)
• TDP: 80 W (RX 6550M) vs 50 W (PRO W6400)
• Slot width: IGP (RX 6550M) vs Single-slot (PRO W6400)
• Suggested PSU: none (RX 6550M) vs 250 W (PRO W6400)
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent (RX 6550M) vs 2x DisplayPort 1.4a (PRO W6400)
• Production status: Active (RX 6550M) vs End-of-life (PRO W6400)
• Release date: 2023-01-03 (RX 6550M) vs 2022-01-18 (PRO W6400)
• Predecessor: Polaris Mobile (RX 6550M) vs Radeon Pro Vega (PRO W6400)
• Average benchmark score: 46,702 (RX 6550M) vs 37,157 (PRO W6400)
• Percentile vs all GPUs: 85 (RX 6550M) vs 80 (PRO W6400)

Fields that are identical include: chip (Navi 24), architecture (RDNA 2.0), process node (6 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistors (5,400 million), die size (107 mm²), transistor density (50.5M / mm²), memory size (4 GB), memory type (GDDR6), bus width (64 bit), ROPs (32), tensor cores (none), bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x4), DirectX (12 Ultimate 12_2), OpenGL (4.6), Vulkan (1.4), power connectors (none), and launch MSRP (not specified for either).

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon RX 6550M is the superior performer in every recorded metric. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (46,702 vs 37,157), a better percentile rank (85 vs 80), and dominates in raw specifications like shading units, clock speeds, and memory bandwidth. The 21.4% OpenCL and 29.5% Vulkan margins are not close, and there is no recorded scenario where the PRO W6400 takes a win.

The PRO W6400's sole advantages are lower power consumption (50 W vs 80 W TDP) and its workstation-oriented display outputs (2x DisplayPort 1.4a), but these do not translate to any performance benefit in the benchmarks. The PRO W6400 also carries a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas the RX 6550M lists none, but with no power connectors on either, this is a system-level consideration rather than a direct GPU requirement.

For anyone choosing between these two, the RX 6550M is the default pick unless the specific need is a low-power single-slot card with DisplayPort outputs for a professional environment. The PRO W6400 is end-of-life, which further tilts the recommendation toward the active RX 6550M. The RX 6550M's nearest rivals, the Intel Arc A530M and AMD Radeon RX 5600M, sit within 0.2% of its average score, meaning it is competitive in its class, while the PRO W6400's nearest rivals are older or differently positioned desktop cards.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon RX 6550M: The RX 6550M wins in every performance category. It is faster in OpenCL by 21.4% and in Vulkan by 29.5%. Its higher boost clock (2840 MHz vs 2321 MHz) and 256 additional shading units give it a decisive edge in compute-heavy workloads such as rendering, machine learning inference, and gaming. The memory bandwidth advantage (144.0 GB/s vs 128.0 GB/s) helps in texture-heavy and data-intensive tasks. Its 16 ray tracing cores versus 12 for the PRO W6400 makes it the better choice for ray-traced content, though the database does not include a dedicated ray tracing benchmark. The RX 6550M is also the only one of the two still in active production, making it the more future-proof option.

AMD Radeon PRO W6400: The PRO W6400 wins in power efficiency and physical form factor. At 50 W TDP, it draws 30 W less than the RX 6550M, making it suitable for compact or thermally constrained systems. It is a single-slot card, while the RX 6550M is listed as IGP, meaning the PRO W6400 has a defined physical footprint for desktop integration. Its 2x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs provide a fixed display configuration, whereas the RX 6550M's outputs are portable device dependent. The PRO W6400 also has a slightly higher base clock (2039 MHz vs 2000 MHz), but this does not overcome its lower boost clock and fewer shaders in any benchmark. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX 4070 (1.3% below) and GTX TITAN X (1.7% above), indicating it performs near those desktop cards, but that is a lower tier than the RX 6550M's position near the Arc A530M and RX 5600M. For professional workloads that require DisplayPort outputs and a low-power single-slot design, the PRO W6400 has a niche, but the data shows it is not a performance competitor to the RX 6550M.