AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs AMD Radeon RX 6650M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data separates these two AMD RDNA 2.0 parts clearly, though the margin is narrower than the product categories suggest. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 wins both head-to-head tests, with an average benchmark score of 81995 against 71768 for the AMD Radeon RX 6650M. That is a 14.2% overall gap in average score, driven almost entirely by the OpenCL result. The PRO W6600 sits at the 92nd percentile among all GPUs, while the RX 6650M sits at the 91st percentile — a one-point difference that understates the actual scoring gap. For users choosing strictly from the data, the PRO W6600 is the stronger compute performer, especially in OpenCL workloads. The RX 6650M is not without merit, however: its Vulkan score of 77735 is within 0.9% of the PRO W6600’s 78428, making it effectively a tie in that API. The verdict hinges on workload. If OpenCL matters, the PRO W6600 is the pick. If Vulkan is the primary path, either card suffices, and the RX 6650M’s mobile form factor may be the deciding factor.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 wins decisively in OpenCL. Its score of 73514 beats the RX 6650M’s 65800 by 11.7%, a substantial margin that reflects higher raw compute throughput. This is the card’s clear strength. In Vulkan, the PRO W6600 wins again, but only by 0.9% (78428 vs 77735), which is within run-to-run variance territory. The RX 6650M has no outright benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. However, its Vulkan score is close enough that for Vulkan-centric applications, the two are functionally equivalent. The RX 6650M’s advantage lies outside raw scores: it is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, drawing 120 W TDP versus the PRO W6600’s 100 W. The PRO W6600 is a single-slot card requiring a 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU; the RX 6650M is portable-device dependent with no such requirements. For mobile or compact systems, the RX 6650M’s form factor is the differentiator, not its benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture: Navi 23 chip, RDNA 2.0, 7 nm process at TSMC, 11,060 million transistors, and a 237 mm² die size. Transistor density is identical at 46.7M per mm². The shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units match exactly: 1792, 112, and 64, respectively. Both have 28 ray tracing cores. Memory subsystems are also identical on paper: 8 GB GDDR6, 128-bit bus, 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 1750 MHz memory clock (14 Gbps effective). The differences emerge in clock speeds and power. The PRO W6600 runs a base clock of 2331 MHz and boost of 2580 MHz, while the RX 6650M runs 2068 MHz base, 2416 MHz boost, with a game clock of 2222 MHz. This clock advantage translates directly into higher throughput rates: the PRO W6600 achieves 165.1 GPixel/s pixel rate and 289.0 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 154.6 GPixel/s and 270.6 GTexel/s for the RX 6650M. FP32 compute is 9.247 TFLOPS vs 8.659 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 18.49 TFLOPS vs 17.32 TFLOPS (both 2:1). The PRO W6600’s higher clocks come with a lower TDP (100 W vs 120 W), which is notable for a desktop card versus a mobile IGP. The RX 6650M’s release date is 2022-01-03, roughly seven months after the PRO W6600’s 2021-06-07 release. Both are end-of-life. The PRO W6600 has a launch MSRP of 649 USD; the RX 6650M has no launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 has an average benchmark score of 81995, while the AMD Radeon RX 6650M scores 71768. The PRO W6600 is 14.2% higher on average.

Q: How close are they in Vulkan performance?

A: The PRO W6600 scores 78428 in Geekbench Vulkan, and the RX 6650M scores 77735. The delta is only 0.9%, making Vulkan performance effectively a tie.

Q: Are the memory specifications identical?

A: Yes. Both use 8 GB GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus, 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 1750 MHz memory clock (14 Gbps effective).

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The PRO W6600 has a 100 W TDP, while the RX 6650M has a 120 W TDP. The PRO W6600 is lower-power despite higher clock speeds.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: Neither. Both have exactly 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to each card?

A: The PRO W6600’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X (avg score 80959, 1.3% behind), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (79842, 2.7% behind). The RX 6650M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (72098, 0.5% ahead), with the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 (72379, 0.8% ahead) close behind.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows two tests, and the PRO W6600 wins both. The larger victory comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where the PRO W6600 scores 73514 against the RX 6650M’s 65800. That is an 11.7% delta, a significant margin that reflects the PRO W6600’s higher base and boost clocks (2331/2580 MHz vs 2068/2416 MHz) and resulting compute rates. The PRO W6600’s FP32 throughput of 9.247 TFLOPS is 6.8% higher than the RX 6650M’s 8.659 TFLOPS, which explains most of the OpenCL gap. The pixel rate difference is 165.1 GPixel/s vs 154.6 GPixel/s (6.8% higher), and the texture rate is 289.0 GTexel/s vs 270.6 GTexel/s (6.8% higher). These consistent rate advantages compound in compute-heavy workloads. The Vulkan test is far closer: 78428 for the PRO W6600 versus 77735 for the RX 6650M, a 0.9% delta. This suggests that Vulkan’s driver overhead and API efficiency level the playing field, reducing the impact of raw clock differences. Notably, the RX 6650M’s Vulkan score is within 1.3% of its own average score, while the PRO W6600’s Vulkan score is 4.4% below its average. In relative terms, the RX 6650M performs closer to its peak in Vulkan than the PRO W6600 does. For users targeting Vulkan specifically, the practical difference is negligible. The OpenCL test, however, is not close. The 11.7% margin is the single largest differentiator in the entire comparison. The PRO W6600’s nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X, scores 80959 on average — that is 1.3% behind the PRO W6600, meaning the PRO W6600 sits just above a previous-generation professional flagship. The RX 6650M’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal, scores 72098, which is 0.5% ahead of the RX 6650M. This places the RX 6650M in the same performance class as a 2016-era desktop flagship, while the PRO W6600 edges out a more recent professional card.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key fields, despite sharing the same chip, architecture, and memory configuration. Clock speeds are the most significant differentiator: the PRO W6600 has a base clock of 2331 MHz and boost of 2580 MHz, while the RX 6650M has 2068 MHz base and 2416 MHz boost. The RX 6650M also lists a game clock of 2222 MHz, which the PRO W6600 does not specify. The PRO W6600 has no listed game clock. Compute rates follow the clocks: the PRO W6600 delivers 9.247 TFLOPS FP32 and 18.49 TFLOPS FP16, versus 8.659 TFLOPS and 17.32 TFLOPS for the RX 6650M. Pixel rate is 165.1 GPixel/s vs 154.6 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 289.0 GTexel/s vs 270.6 GTexel/s. Power and physical specs diverge sharply. The PRO W6600 is a single-slot card with a 100 W TDP, a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a 300 W suggested PSU. It measures 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length. The RX 6650M is an IGP with a 120 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. Its dimensions are not listed. Display outputs differ: the PRO W6600 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RX 6650M’s outputs are portable-device dependent. The bus interface is identical (PCIe 4.0 x8). The release dates differ by about seven months: 2021-06-07 for the PRO W6600, 2022-01-03 for the RX 6650M. The PRO W6600 has a launch MSRP of 649 USD; the RX 6650M has none listed. The PRO W6600’s predecessor is the Radeon Pro Vega, while the RX 6650M’s predecessor is the Polaris Mobile. Both are end-of-life and have no listed successor. The RX 6650M is part of the Radeon RX 6000 series and the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation; the PRO W6600 is listed under Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series). Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has tensor cores. The transistor count and die size are identical at 11,060 million and 237 mm², respectively.