AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly along workload types. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X takes both recorded wins, but the nature of those wins tells a different story for each card's intended use.

In Geekbench Metal, the W6800X scores 196,844 against the W6600's 94,042. That is a 109.3% advantage, meaning the larger card more than doubles the smaller one's Metal performance. Metal is Apple's graphics API, and the W6800X is explicitly part of the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi II Series) generation, so this result aligns with its design purpose for Mac Pro-class workloads. The W6600, by contrast, belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series) generation and ships with DisplayPort outputs rather than Thunderbolt, indicating a workstation-PC orientation rather than a Mac-centric one.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the W6800X scores 124,498 versus 73,514 for the W6600, a 69.4% lead. OpenCL is a cross-platform compute API, and while the W6800X still wins decisively, the margin is narrower than in Metal. This suggests that the W6600's compute efficiency per unit of silicon is relatively strong, even if its absolute throughput is far lower. The W6600 also has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 78,428, a test the W6800X does not have in the database, so the smaller card can at least claim a measurable result in that API where the larger one has no recorded data.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward: the W6800X dominates in Apple-centric Metal and OpenCL workloads, while the W6600 offers a functional Vulkan path and a much lower power footprint for users who prioritize those characteristics. Neither card wins in a category where both have results, but the W6600's Vulkan result gives it a niche the W6800X cannot match in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use the RDNA 2.0 architecture and are fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process, but they are built around different chips with substantially different scales. The W6800X uses the Navi 21 chip with 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.5 million per square millimeter. The W6600 uses the Navi 23 chip with 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, yielding 46.7 million per square millimeter. The W6800X's chip is more than twice the transistor count and more than double the die area, but its density advantage is modest, suggesting the extra silicon goes mostly into wider execution resources rather than denser packing.

The execution resource gap is pronounced. The W6800X has 3,840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, 96 raster operations pipelines, and 60 ray tracing cores. The W6600 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. In every category, the W6800X has at least double the W6600's count, except for ROPs where it has exactly 1.5 times. This structural difference explains why the W6800X achieves 16.03 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.06 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the W6600 reaches 9.247 TFLOPS FP32 and 18.49 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The W6800X also posts a pixel rate of 200.4 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 500.9 GTexel/s, versus 165.1 GPixel/s and 289.0 GTexel/s for the W6600.

Memory architecture differs just as sharply. The W6800X carries 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth and 2000 MHz memory clock (16 Gbps effective). The W6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth and 1750 MHz memory clock (14 Gbps effective). The W6800X offers four times the capacity and more than double the bandwidth, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The W6600's smaller bus also explains its lower pixel rate despite a higher base clock of 2331 MHz versus 1800 MHz, and a higher boost clock of 2580 MHz versus 2087 MHz for the W6800X.

Physical and electrical characteristics diverge further. The W6800X is a quad-slot card using an Apple MPX power connector and bus interface, with a 200 W TDP and a suggested 550 W power supply. The W6600 is a single-slot card using a single 6-pin connector and PCIe 4.0 x8, with a 100 W TDP and a suggested 300 W power supply. The W6800X measures 267 mm long and 120 mm high; the W6600 is 241 mm long with no recorded height. The W6800X displays through 1x HDMI 2.1 and 4x Thunderbolt, while the W6600 uses 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X has a recorded average benchmark score of 160,671, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 has an average of 81,995, placing it in the 92nd percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench Metal?

A: The W6800X scores 196,844 in Geekbench Metal, while the W6600 scores 94,042. The W6800X leads by 109.3%, making this its largest single-benchmark advantage over the W6600.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The W6800X has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the W6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The W6800X also has more than double the memory bandwidth, at 512.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s.

Q: Are both cards based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use RDNA 2.0 and are fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. However, they use different chips: the W6800X uses Navi 21, while the W6600 uses Navi 23.

Q: Which card has a recorded Vulkan benchmark result?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 78,428. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X has no Vulkan result in the database, only Metal and OpenCL scores.

Q: How does the W6600 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W6600's average score of 81,995 is 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X, 2.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090, 3.0% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB, and 3.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge in nearly every measurable specification except architecture, process node, foundry, and API support. The W6800X uses the Navi 21 chip; the W6600 uses Navi 23. Transistor count is 26,800 million versus 11,060 million. Die size is 520 mm² versus 237 mm². Transistor density is 51.5M per mm² versus 46.7M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the W6600 in raw frequency. The W6600 has a base clock of 2331 MHz and a boost clock of 2580 MHz, while the W6800X has a base of 1800 MHz and a boost of 2087 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the W6800X runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), the W6600 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and ray tracing cores all favor the W6800X by at least 1.5x. The W6800X has 3,840 shading units, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 60 RT cores. The W6600 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores. Pixel rate is 200.4 GPixel/s versus 165.1 GPixel/s; texture rate is 500.9 GTexel/s versus 289.0 GTexel/s; FP32 is 16.03 TFLOPS versus 9.247 TFLOPS; FP16 is 32.06 TFLOPS versus 18.49 TFLOPS.

Memory size is 32 GB versus 8 GB, bus width is 256-bit versus 128-bit, and bandwidth is 512.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s. Power draw is 200 W versus 100 W. Slot width is quad-slot versus single-slot. Power connectors are Apple MPX versus 1x 6-pin. Suggested PSU is 550 W versus 300 W. Bus interface is Apple MPX versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 plus 4x Thunderbolt versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Dimensions are 267 mm by 120 mm versus 241 mm long with no recorded height. Release dates are August 2021 versus June 2021. The W6600 has a recorded predecessor, the Radeon Pro Vega; the W6800X has none. The W6800X has a launch MSRP of 2,799 USD; the W6600 has a launch MSRP of 649 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between the W6800X and the W6600, and the W6800X wins both. The first is Geekbench Metal, where the W6800X scores 196,844 against the W6600's 94,042. The delta is 109.3%, meaning the W6800X delivers more than double the Metal performance. This is the largest relative gap between the two cards in any test, and it reflects the W6800X's positioning within the Radeon Pro Mac series, where Metal is the primary graphics API.

The second comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, where the W6800X scores 124,498 against the W6600's 73,514. The delta here is 69.4%, a substantial margin but still far smaller than the Metal gap. OpenCL is a more general-purpose compute API, and the W6600's higher clock speeds (2331 MHz base, 2580 MHz boost) help it close some of the relative distance, even though its absolute scores remain far lower. The W6800X's FP32 throughput of 16.03 TFLOPS versus 9.247 TFLOPS for the W6600 explains why the larger card still wins comfortably, but the frequency advantage of the smaller chip shows up in the narrower percentage.

The W6600 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 78,428, which is not matched by any W6800X result in the database. While this cannot be treated as a head-to-head comparison, it does indicate that the W6600 has a functional Vulkan path that the W6800X lacks in recorded data. For any workload that relies specifically on Vulkan, the W6600 is the only one of the two with a measurable result.

Looking at the W6800X's position against its nearest rivals provides context for its scores. Its average of 160,671 is 1.1% below the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB, 2.6% below the AMD Radeon PRO W7800, 2.8% below the NVIDIA RTX A5500, and 3.3% below the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation. All four rivals sit within a narrow 3.3% band above the W6800X, so the card is competitive with that tier despite those small deficits. The W6600's nearest rivals are all below it: the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X trails by 1.3%, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 by 2.7%, and the two NVIDIA Tesla P100 variants by 3.0% and 3.3%. The W6600 therefore leads its immediate competitive set, while the W6800X trails its own rivals by small margins.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy: the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X is the substantially faster card in every recorded head-to-head test, with a 109.3% lead in Metal and a 69.4% lead in OpenCL. Its average benchmark score of 160,671 places it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the W6600's 81,995 sits in the 92nd percentile. For any workload where raw throughput, memory capacity, or bandwidth is the primary constraint, the W6800X is the only choice between these two.

The W6800X offers 32 GB of GDDR6 memory with 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is four times the capacity and more than double the bandwidth of the W6600. It also has double the shading units, TMUs, and ray tracing cores, plus 1.5 times the ROPs. Its FP32 performance of 16.03 TFLOPS is 73% higher than the W6600's 9.247 TFLOPS, and its pixel rate and texture rate are both higher. The W6800X is designed for Mac Pro systems with its Apple MPX connector, quad-slot footprint, and Thunderbolt outputs, and its 200 W TDP with a 550 W suggested PSU reflects that larger physical envelope.

The W6600, however, has its own rationale. It is a single-slot card with a 100 W TDP and a 300 W suggested PSU, making it far easier to integrate into compact workstations. Its display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, which suits PC-based professional environments rather than Apple ecosystems. It also has a recorded Vulkan score of 78,428, which the W6800X cannot match because it has no Vulkan result in the database. The W6600's higher clock speeds (2331 MHz base, 2580 MHz boost) give it a frequency advantage, even though the W6800X compensates with far more execution resources.

The W6600 sits ahead of its nearest rivals by 1.3% to 3.3%, while the W6800X sits behind its nearest rivals by 1.1% to 3.3%. Neither card is at the top of its competitive tier, but the W6600 leads its group while the W6800X trails its group. That said, the W6800X's percentile rank is five points higher, and its average score is roughly double the W6600's.

The verdict from the recorded data is that the W6800X is for users who need maximum compute and memory throughput in a Mac Pro context, accepting a quad-slot footprint and 200 W power draw. The W6600 is for users who need a lower-power, single-slot card with DisplayPort outputs and Vulkan support, and who can work within 8 GB of memory and 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The choice hinges on platform, power budget, and the specific API requirements of the workload, not on any ambiguity about which card is faster.