AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 is decisively ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM across every shared benchmark in the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, the PRO W6600 scores 73514 against 62427 for the RX 5600 OEM, a 17.8% advantage. The gap widens considerably in Geekbench Vulkan, where the PRO W6600 reaches 78428 while the RX 5600 OEM manages only 53743, a commanding 45.9% lead. This is not a marginal victory; the PRO W6600 dominates both compute and graphics API workloads.

The Vulkan result is particularly telling. A 45.9% delta indicates that the PRO W6600's architecture extracts far more performance from the modern graphics API. The RX 5600 OEM, built on RDNA 1.0, lacks the hardware features that RDNA 2.0 brings to Vulkan workloads, and the benchmark data reflects that shortfall clearly.

In OpenCL, the 17.8% advantage is smaller but still substantial. Both cards handle general-purpose compute, yet the PRO W6600's higher clock speeds and newer architecture allow it to pull ahead consistently. The RX 5600 OEM does have more shading units (2048 vs 1792) and more texture mapping units (128 vs 112), but raw counts alone do not translate into wins when clock rates differ this much.

Looking at the broader database standings, the PRO W6600 sits at the 92nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 81995. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X at 80959 (1.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 at 79842 (2.7% behind), the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB at 79605 (3.0% behind), and the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB at 79396 (1.3% behind in reverse order of listing). The RX 5600 OEM, by contrast, sits at the 87th percentile with an average score of 58085. Its nearest rivals are tightly packed: Intel Arc A570M at 58239 (0.3% behind), AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT at 58392 (0.5% behind in reverse), Intel Arc A580 at 57756 (0.6% ahead in reverse), and NVIDIA P102-100 at 58528 (0.8% behind in reverse). The RX 5600 OEM is effectively in a dead heat with these cards, while the PRO W6600 enjoys a comfortable cushion above its own rivals.

The head-to-head win count is 2 for the PRO W6600 and 0 for the RX 5600 OEM. There is no benchmark in the shared set where the RX 5600 OEM emerges victorious, making this a one-sided comparison in every measured dimension.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent different generations of AMD GPU design. The PRO W6600 uses the Navi 23 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, while the RX 5600 OEM uses the Navi 10 chip built on RDNA 1.0. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 7 nm process, so the manufacturing node is identical, but the underlying microarchitecture differs significantly.

Transistor counts are close: the PRO W6600 packs 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, while the RX 5600 OEM houses 10,300 million transistors on a larger 251 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 46.7 million per square millimeter for the PRO W6600 versus 41.0 million per square millimeter for the RX 5600 OEM. The smaller die with more transistors indicates a denser, more modern layout.

Clock speeds tell a major story. The PRO W6600 has a base clock of 2331 MHz and a boost clock of 2580 MHz, whereas the RX 5600 OEM operates at a base of 1130 MHz and a boost of 1560 MHz, with a game clock of 1375 MHz. The PRO W6600's boost clock exceeds the RX 5600 OEM's game clock by over 1000 MHz, more than 65% higher in raw frequency. Higher clocks directly feed into fill rates, pixel throughput, and compute throughput, which explains why the PRO W6600 achieves 165.1 GPixel/s pixel rate and 289.0 GTexel/s texture rate against 99.84 GPixel/s and 199.7 GTexel/s for the RX 5600 OEM.

Ray tracing is a defining feature that separates the two cards entirely. The PRO W6600 includes 28 ray accelerators (RT cores), while the RX 5600 OEM lists none at all, a key architectural difference in API feature support and API-level performance potential. The PRO W6600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) with hardware ray tracing, while the RX 5600 OEM only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1) and lacks RT capabilities entirely. Both cards support OpenGL 4.1a and Vulkan 1.4, so API coverage is otherwise similar, but DirectX feature level differs by a full tier.

Memory bandwidth and memory bus widths also diverge sharply. The PRO W6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s bandwidth with memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The RX 5600 OEM has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a wider 192 bit bus, delivering 288.0 GB/s bandwidth with memory clock of 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) with bandwidth not specified at 288.0 GB/s, but listed at 288.0 GB/s for bandwidth which is higher at 288.0 GB/s. The RX 5600 OEM's memory bandwidth is 288.0 GB/s does exceed the PRO W6600's 224.0 GB/s, giving the RX 5600 OEM a memory bandwidth advantage of 64.0 GB/s, which is a notable edge in memory-heavy workloads despite losing on the PRO W6600's side in overall performance.

Shading units count 1792 on the PRO W6600 versus 2048 on the RX 5600 OEM, and TMUs number 112 versus 128, while ROPs are equal at 64. The RX 5600 OEM has more shading units and more TMUs, yet the PRO W6600 wins every benchmark. This shows that architectural efficiency and clock speed outweigh raw unit counts in these tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 boosts to 2580 MHz, while the AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM boosts to 1560 MHz, a difference of 1020 MHz in favor of the PRO W6600.

Q: Does the RX 5600 OEM support hardware ray tracing?

A: No, the RX 5600 OEM lists no ray accelerators and supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The PRO W6600 includes 28 ray accelerators and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), so ray tracing is exclusive to the PRO W6600.

Q: How much faster is the PRO W6600 in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The PRO W6600 scores 78428 in Geekbench Vulkan against 53743 for the RX 5600 OEM, a 45.9% lead, the largest single benchmark delta between the two cards.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 5600 OEM has 288.0 GB/s over a 192 bit bus, while the PRO W6600 has 224.0 GB/s over a 128 bit bus. The RX 5600 OEM leads by 64.0 GB/s, but this does not translate into a benchmark win.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The PRO W6600 has a TDP of 100 W and is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector. The RX 5600 OEM has a TDP of 125 W and is a dual-slot card with a 1x 8-pin power connector. Both recommend a 300 W power supply.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The PRO W6600 averages 81995 across all recorded benchmarks, placing it at the 92nd percentile of all GPUs. The RX 5600 OEM averages 58085, placing it at the 87th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon PRO W6600 | AMD Radeon RX 5600 OEM |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Chip | Navi 23 | Navi 10 |

| Generation | Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series) | Navi (RX 5000) |

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

| Die Size | 237 mm² | 251 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 2331 MHz | 1130 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2580 MHz | 1560 MHz |

| Game Clock | None | 1375 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 6 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 288.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 112 | 128 |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| Ray Accelerators | 28 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 165.1 GPixel/s | 99.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 289.0 GTexel/s | 199.7 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 9.247 TFLOPS | 6.390 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1) | 12.78 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | 125 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Release Date | 2021-06-07 | 2020-01-20 |

| Launch MSRP | 649 USD | None |

Where Each One Wins

The PRO W6600 wins in every measured benchmark category, with the Vulkan test being its strongest showing at a 45.9% margin. It also leads in OpenCL by 17.8%, securing 2 wins and 0 losses. Its higher boost clock of 2580 MHz versus 1560 MHz directly contributes to a pixel rate of 165.1 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 289.0 GTexel/s, both far above the RX 5600 OEM's 99.84 GPixel/s and 199.7 GTexel/s. The PRO W6600 doubles the FP32 throughput at 9.247 TFLOPS versus 6.390 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance is similarly higher at 18.49 TFLOPS versus 12.78 TFLOPS.

The PRO W6600 also distinguishes itself with 28 ray accelerators and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, making it the only card of the pair capable of hardware-accelerated ray tracing. It has a smaller footprint as a single-slot card with a lower TDP of 100 W, while the RX 5600 OEM requires a dual-slot design and draws 125 W. The PRO W6600 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RX 5600 OEM provides a mix of 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

The RX 5600 OEM does hold advantages in several specification categories that do not translate into benchmark wins. It has more shading units (2048 vs 1792) and more TMUs (128 vs 112), a wider 192 bit memory bus, and higher memory bandwidth at 288.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s. It also uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface compared to the PRO W6600's PCIe 4.0 x8 connection. These are meaningful hardware differences, but in the recorded benchmarks, none of them overcome the clock speed and architectural advantages of the PRO W6600.

For users who need a lower power draw, single-slot form factor, and modern API features like ray tracing, the PRO W6600 is the clear pick. For workloads that are extremely memory-bandwidth sensitive, the RX 5600 OEM's 288.0 GB/s could theoretically be relevant, but the benchmark data shows no scenario where that translates into a win. The RX 5600 OEM's only advantages are in raw unit counts and bandwidth, which do not show up as performance wins in the database.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 is the superior GPU in every shared benchmark. Its 17.8% OpenCL lead and 45.9% Vulkan lead over the RX 5600 OEM are backed by a higher average score of 81995 versus 58085, placing it at the 92nd percentile of all GPUs versus the 87th percentile for the RX 5600 OEM. The PRO W6600 also brings features the RX 5600 OEM simply does not have: 28 ray accelerators, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a lower 100 W TDP in a single-slot design.

Users who prioritize compute performance, modern graphics APIs, ray tracing capability, and power efficiency should choose the PRO W6600. It delivers more FLOPS (9.247 TFLOPS FP32 vs 6.390 TFLOPS), higher pixel and texture rates, and a smaller physical footprint. Its launch MSRP was 649 USD, and it has reached end-of-life status, but the benchmark data shows it remains a strong performer in its class.

Users who need more memory bandwidth, a wider memory bus, or more shading units might look at the RX 5600 OEM's specification sheet favorably, but the recorded measurements do not support that choice. The RX 5600 OEM loses both head-to-head tests and sits in a much tighter competitive cluster among its nearest rivals, with deltas under 1% in either direction. The PRO W6600, by contrast, leads its nearest rivals by 1.3% to 3.3%, a more comfortable margin.

The verdict is straightforward: the PRO W6600 wins on performance, architecture, features, and efficiency. The RX 5600 OEM offers higher bandwidth and more compute units on paper, but the benchmark results show that the PRO W6600's RDNA 2.0 architecture and substantially higher clock speeds deliver the actual wins. Anyone choosing between these two should select the PRO W6600 unless they have a specific, benchmark-verified need for the RX 5600 OEM's memory bandwidth, which does not appear in the recorded data.