AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs AMD Radeon Pro W6600M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 and AMD Radeon Pro W6600M share the same Navi 23 chip and RDNA 2.0 architecture, but the database shows they are not equal in performance. The desktop PRO W6600 wins decisively in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, with a 30.9% advantage in OpenCL and a 15.9% advantage in Vulkan. The W6600M, a mobile IGP part, trails in both compute APIs despite identical core counts and memory configuration.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the PRO W6600 is the clear choice. Its higher clock speeds translate directly into higher fill rates and floating-point performance. The desktop card records an average benchmark score of 81995, placing it in the 92nd percentile among all GPUs. The mobile part averages 61896, sitting in the 89th percentile. The 20,099-point gap in average scores represents a substantial performance tier separation, not a minor variance.

The W6600M does have one contextual advantage: it is an integrated-class mobile part (IGP slot width) with no power connectors, making it suitable for portable workstations where the PRO W6600's single-slot, 6-pin powered design would not fit. However, in pure performance terms, the data shows no scenario where the mobile part wins. The desktop part wins both recorded head-to-head tests, and the mobile part has zero wins in the comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 records an average benchmark score of 81995, compared to 61896 for the Radeon Pro W6600M. That is a 32.5% higher average score for the desktop part.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap?

A: In the geekbench_opencl test, the PRO W6600 scores 73514 versus 56140 for the W6600M. The desktop card leads by 30.9% in this test.

Q: Does the mobile W6600M win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows two recorded tests (geekbench_opencl and geekbench_vulkan), and the PRO W6600 wins both. The win count is 2 for the desktop part and 0 for the mobile part.

Q: Are the core configurations identical?

A: Yes. Both GPUs have 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation units, and 28 ray tracing cores. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What explains the performance difference if the chips are the same?

A: Clock speeds. The PRO W6600 has a base clock of 2331 MHz and boost clock of 2580 MHz, while the W6600M has a base clock of 1224 MHz and boost clock of 2034 MHz. The desktop part's higher clocks yield 9.247 TFLOPS FP32 versus 7.290 TFLOPS for the mobile part.

Q: How do the parts compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The PRO W6600 sits 1.3% above the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X and 2.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 in average score. The W6600M sits 0.3% below the AMD Radeon 8050S and 2.6% above both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 and Intel Arc Pro A60.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and both favor the desktop PRO W6600 substantially. In geekbench_opencl, the PRO W6600 scores 73514 against the W6600M's 56140, a delta of 30.9%. This is the larger of the two gaps and reflects the desktop part's higher sustained clock operation under compute workloads. The mobile part's lower base clock of 1224 MHz likely contributes to this deficit, as OpenCL workloads often scale with sustained clock frequency rather than short boost bursts.

In geekbench_vulkan, the gap narrows but remains decisive. The PRO W6600 scores 78428, while the W6600M scores 67652, a 15.9% delta. Vulkan's lower-level API overhead may allow the mobile part to utilize its boost clock more effectively, but the desktop part still maintains a clear lead. The combined picture is consistent: the PRO W6600 delivers between 16% and 31% more performance depending on the API.

Looking at the rivals in the database provides context for these numbers. The PRO W6600's average score of 81995 places it above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (79842) and the NVIDIA Tesla P100 variants (79605 and 79396). The W6600M's average of 61896 places it just below the AMD Radeon 8050S (62108) but above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60347) and Intel Arc Pro A60 (60326). In other words, the desktop part competes with high-end desktop accelerators, while the mobile part competes with mid-range desktop and mobile offerings.

The wins are not close calls. The OpenCL delta of 30.9% is more than double the Vulkan delta of 15.9%, but both are clear victories. There is no benchmark in the recorded data where the W6600M comes within single-digit percentage points of the PRO W6600.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share their fundamental specifications but diverge in clock speeds, power, and physical design.

Clock speeds: The PRO W6600 runs at 2331 MHz base and 2580 MHz boost. The W6600M runs at 1224 MHz base and 2034 MHz boost. The desktop part's base clock is 1107 MHz higher, and its boost clock is 546 MHz higher.

Power and cooling: The PRO W6600 has a TDP of 100 W, uses a single-slot design with one 6-pin power connector, and requires a 300 W suggested PSU. The W6600M has a TDP of 90 W, uses an IGP slot width, has no power connectors, and lists no suggested PSU.

Bus interface: The PRO W6600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the W6600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The mobile part has double the PCIe lanes, though its lower clock speeds mean it is unlikely to saturate the wider interface in most workloads.

Display outputs: The PRO W6600 provides 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The W6600M's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by the laptop implementation.

Dimensions: The PRO W6600 measures 241 mm or 9.5 inches in length. The W6600M has no recorded dimensions, consistent with its IGP form factor.

Physical size and power delivery are the most significant practical differences. The desktop card is a standalone single-slot unit; the mobile part is integrated into a motherboard. Both are end-of-life products released on the same date, and neither has a recorded successor.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same Navi 23 chip using RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. Both use 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 46.7M per square millimeter. The architectural cores are identical in count: 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. Neither part has tensor cores.

Memory is also identical: 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed, yielding 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is the same on both parts, so memory bandwidth is not a differentiator.

The architectural difference is purely in operating frequency and derived throughput rates. The PRO W6600 achieves a pixel rate of 165.1 GPixel/s and texture rate of 289.0 GTexel/s. The W6600M achieves 130.2 GPixel/s and 227.8 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 9.247 TFLOPS for the desktop part versus 7.290 TFLOPS for the mobile part, and FP16 is 18.49 TFLOPS versus 14.58 TFLOPS, both at 2:1 ratio.

API support is identical: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The generation labels differ, with the PRO W6600 in the "Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series)" and the W6600M in "Radeon Pro Mobile (W6x00M)," but the silicon and feature set are the same. The predecessors differ: the PRO W6600 succeeds the Radeon Pro Vega, while the W6600M succeeds the FirePro Mobile. The core architecture is the same; only the implementation targets differ.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: choose the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 for performance, and choose the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M only if the form factor demands it.

The PRO W6600 wins every recorded benchmark, with a 30.9% lead in OpenCL and a 15.9% lead in Vulkan. Its average score of 81995 places it in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs, 20,099 points above the W6600M's average. The desktop part also ranks favorably against its nearest rivals, sitting above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 and both Tesla P100 variants.

The W6600M is not a bad part; its 89th percentile ranking and average score above the RTX 4090 and Arc Pro A60 show it is capable. But it is not competitive with its desktop sibling. The 1107 MHz base clock deficit and 546 MHz boost clock deficit create performance gaps that no architectural similarity can overcome.

For a workstation with a PCIe slot and power supply headroom, the PRO W6600 is the obvious pick. It delivers 9.247 TFLOPS FP32, 165.1 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 289.0 GTexel/s texture rate, all in a single-slot, 100 W package. For a mobile workstation where the GPU must be integrated and connector-free, the W6600M is the only option of the two, but it will operate at roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of the desktop part's performance depending on the workload.

The launch MSRP for the PRO W6600 is 649 USD. The W6600M has no recorded launch MSRP, consistent with its mobile-integrated nature.

There is no nuance here. The desktop part is faster in every measurable way, and the mobile part exists for a different physical context. Buyers who can use a desktop card should not compromise on the mobile variant. Buyers who need a mobile GPU will accept the W6600M's lower performance as a form factor trade-off, not as a performance preference.