AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs AMD Radeon PRO W6600

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 and AMD Radeon PRO W6600 are both professional workstation graphics cards aimed at similar use cases, but benchmark data shows the W7600 holds a clear performance edge across the tested workloads. In OpenCL and Vulkan compute tests, the W7600 outperforms the W6600 by double-digit margins, while the W6600 counters with a lower power draw and a higher base clock. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and the specific scenarios where each card makes sense for a workstation build.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark comparison includes two compute-oriented tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 wins decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7600 scores 81,528 points against the W6600’s 73,514 points. That is a 10.9% advantage for the W7600. This test typically reflects raw compute throughput for tasks like rendering, simulation, and GPU-accelerated processing, so the W7600’s lead suggests it handles general-purpose compute workloads with noticeably more headroom.

The gap widens in Geekbench Vulkan, where the W7600 scores 92,688 points versus the W6600’s 78,428 points. That is an 18.2% delta, the largest win in this comparison. Vulkan performance matters for real-time graphics, game engines, and certain professional visualization tools. The W7600’s stronger showing here indicates it is better suited for applications that leverage modern low-level APIs.

Overall, the W7600 wins 2 benchmarks, while the W6600 wins 0. The W7600’s average benchmark score across all tests is 87,108, compared to the W6600’s 81,995, which is a 6.2% difference in aggregate performance. The W7600 also sits in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the W6600 sits in the 92nd percentile — both are high performers, but the W7600 ranks slightly higher.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context: the W7600’s average score of 87,108 places it just 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (87,445) and 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 40HX (85,637). It trails the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134) by 4.4% and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671) by 5%. For the W6600, its average score of 81,995 is 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X (80,959), 2.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (79,842), 3% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (79,605), and 3.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB (79,396). These figures show both cards are competitive within their respective performance tiers, but the W7600 sits closer to higher-end workstation GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 wins both head-to-head tests. It is 10.9% faster in Geekbench OpenCL (81,528 vs 73,514) and 18.2% faster in Geekbench Vulkan (92,688 vs 78,428).

Q: Does the W6600 win in any benchmark category?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the W7600 wins 2 benchmarks and the W6600 wins 0. The W6600’s only benchmark advantage is its higher base clock speed, but that does not translate to a score advantage in these tests.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The W7600 has an average benchmark score of 87,108, while the W6600 averages 81,995. That is a 6.2% difference in favor of the W7600.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The W7600 is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 and 5% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4500. The W6600 is 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X and 3.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The W7600 boosts to 2440 MHz, while the W6600 boosts to 2580 MHz. The W6600 has a higher boost clock, but the W7600 still wins all compute benchmarks.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 has a launch MSRP of 649 USD.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on different generations of AMD’s RDNA architecture, which explains much of the performance gap. The W7600 uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed “Hotpink Bonefish.” The W6600 uses the older RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip. This generational jump brings several key improvements.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The W7600 is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the W6600 uses a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller node allows the W7600 to pack more transistors into a smaller die: 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, compared to 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die for the W6600. This results in a transistor density of 65.2M per mm² for the W7600 versus 46.7M per mm² for the W6600. The W7600 achieves higher density on a smaller die, which is a hallmark of the newer architecture.

Core counts also favor the W7600. It has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), 64 raster output units (ROPs), and 32 ray tracing cores. The W6600 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The W7600 has 14.3% more shading units, 14.3% more TMUs, and 14.3% more ray tracing cores, while both have the same 64 ROPs.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity but differ in speed. Both cards have 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus. The W7600 runs its memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), delivering 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6600 runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), delivering 224.0 GB/s. That is a 28.6% bandwidth advantage for the W7600, which directly impacts memory-bound workloads.

Compute throughput tells a similar story. The W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 39.98 TFLOPS of FP16 performance (2:1 ratio). The W6600 delivers 9.247 TFLOPS of FP32 and 18.49 TFLOPS of FP16. The W7600 is more than double the W6600 in raw floating-point throughput, which is a massive architectural leap.

Display output also differs. The W7600 has 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the W6600 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API support is identical.

Power characteristics differ as well. The W7600 has a TDP of 130 W, while the W6600 has a TDP of 100 W. Both are single-slot cards with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The W7600 draws more power to achieve its higher performance.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most professional workloads: the AMD Radeon PRO W7600. It wins every head-to-head benchmark, has a higher average score, more compute cores, faster memory, and a newer architecture. The 18.2% lead in Vulkan and 10.9% lead in OpenCL are substantial margins that will translate to real-world speedups in GPU-accelerated applications.

The W7600 also holds a higher percentile ranking (93rd vs 92nd) and a lower launch MSRP (599 USD vs 649 USD), making it the stronger choice on both performance and initial cost. However, the W6600 is not without merit. It has a lower TDP of 100 W versus 130 W, which means it draws less power and generates less heat. It also has a higher base clock (2331 MHz vs 1720 MHz) and a higher boost clock (2580 MHz vs 2440 MHz), though these do not result in benchmark wins.

For builders prioritizing raw compute performance, the W7600 is the obvious pick. Its double-digit wins in both tested APIs and its higher bandwidth make it the better workstation card for rendering, simulation, and compute-heavy tasks. The W6600 may appeal to those with strict power budgets or those upgrading from older RDNA 2 cards who do not need the extra throughput, but the benchmark data does not support choosing it on performance grounds.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification except memory capacity, bus width, ROP count, slot width, power connector, suggested PSU, and bus interface.

• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 (W7600) vs RDNA 2.0 (W6600)
• Chip: Navi 33 (W7600) vs Navi 23 (W6600)
• Process Node: 6 nm (W7600) vs 7 nm (W6600)
• Transistors: 13,300 million (W7600) vs 11,060 million (W6600)
• Die Size: 204 mm² (W7600) vs 237 mm² (W6600)
• Transistor Density: 65.2M / mm² (W7600) vs 46.7M / mm² (W6600)
• Base Clock: 1720 MHz (W7600) vs 2331 MHz (W6600)
• Boost Clock: 2440 MHz (W7600) vs 2580 MHz (W6600)
• Memory Clock: 2250 MHz / 18 Gbps (W7600) vs 1750 MHz / 14 Gbps (W6600)
• Memory Bandwidth: 288.0 GB/s (W7600) vs 224.0 GB/s (W6600)
• Shading Units: 2048 (W7600) vs 1792 (W6600)
• TMUs: 128 (W7600) vs 112 (W6600)
• RT Cores: 32 (W7600) vs 28 (W6600)
• Pixel Rate: 156.2 GPixel/s (W7600) vs 165.1 GPixel/s (W6600)
• Texture Rate: 312.3 GTexel/s (W7600) vs 289.0 GTexel/s (W6600)
• FP32: 19.99 TFLOPS (W7600) vs 9.247 TFLOPS (W6600)
• FP16: 39.98 TFLOPS (W7600) vs 18.49 TFLOPS (W6600)
• TDP: 130 W (W7600) vs 100 W (W6600)
• Display Outputs: 4x DisplayPort 2.1 (W7600) vs 4x DisplayPort 1.4a (W6600)
• Production Status: Active (W7600) vs End-of-life (W6600)
• Release Date: 2023-08-02 (W7600) vs 2021-06-07 (W6600)

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon PRO W7600 wins in compute performance. It is 10.9% faster in OpenCL and 18.2% faster in Vulkan, with an average score 6.2% higher. Its 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 19.99 TFLOPS FP32 throughput give it a clear edge in rendering, simulation, and GPU compute tasks. The newer DisplayPort 2.1 outputs also future-proof it for high-refresh, high-resolution displays.

AMD Radeon PRO W6600 wins in efficiency and clock speed. It has a 30 W lower TDP (100 W vs 130 W), making it easier to cool in tight chassis. Its base clock of 2331 MHz and boost clock of 2580 MHz are both higher than the W7600’s 1720 MHz and 2440 MHz, which may help in lightly threaded tasks that favor clock speed over core count. It also has a higher pixel rate of 165.1 GPixel/s versus 156.2 GPixel/s, though this does not translate to a benchmark win.

For most workstation builders, the W7600 is the superior card. It wins every tested workload, costs less at launch, and is built on a newer, denser architecture. The W6600’s only practical advantages are lower power draw and higher clocks, which are unlikely to compensate for the W7600’s substantial compute lead in demanding professional applications. If power efficiency is the absolute priority, the W6600 remains viable, but the data overwhelmingly favors the W7600 for performance-driven decisions.