AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs AMD Radeon RX 7600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M, and it is a decisive result. In Geekbench OpenCL, the PRO W6600 scores 73514, while the RX 7600M scores 63775. That is a 15.3% advantage for the PRO W6600, a substantial margin in a compute workload that exercises the full GPU pipeline.

The RX 7600M does not win any head-to-head test in the database. The PRO W6600 holds the only recorded win, 1 to 0. This is not a close contest in the measured metric. However, the lack of additional head-to-head tests, such as Vulkan or Metal, means the picture is incomplete. The PRO W6600 has separate Geekbench scores for Vulkan (78428) and Metal (94042), while the RX 7600M only has an OpenCL entry. So, the OpenCL result is the sole basis for direct comparison.

Looking at broader context, the PRO W6600's average benchmark score is 81995, which places it in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs. The RX 7600M's average score is 63775, placing it in the 89th percentile. The percentile gap is small, but the raw score gap is significant. The PRO W6600 also has a stronger immediate rival set: its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X, scores 80959, which is just 1.3% behind the PRO W6600. The RX 7600M's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP, scores 63830, which is 0.1% ahead of the RX 7600M. This suggests the RX 7600M sits in a tighter competitive cluster, where small differences separate cards, whereas the PRO W6600 has a clearer edge over its closest peers.

In terms of raw compute throughput, the PRO W6600's FP32 performance is 9.247 TFLOPS, while the RX 7600M is rated at 17.27 TFLOPS. That is a notable theoretical advantage for the RX 7600M, yet the OpenCL benchmark shows the opposite outcome. This indicates that architectural efficiency and driver optimization matter more than peak FLOP counts in this specific test. The PRO W6600 also has a higher pixel rate (165.1 GPixel/s versus 154.2 GPixel/s) and a higher texture rate (289.0 GTexel/s versus 269.9 GTexel/s), even though the RX 7600M has a higher memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s). The RX 7600M's faster memory does not translate into a benchmark win.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 wins the sole head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 73514 against the RX 7600M's 63775, a 15.3% delta.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The PRO W6600 has an average benchmark score of 81995, while the RX 7600M has 63775. The PRO W6600 ranks in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs, and the RX 7600M ranks in the 89th.

Q: Does the RX 7600M have any advantages in raw compute specifications?

A: Yes, the RX 7600M has a higher FP32 rating at 17.27 TFLOPS versus 9.247 TFLOPS for the PRO W6600, and a higher FP16 rating at 34.55 TFLOPS versus 18.49 TFLOPS.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: For the PRO W6600, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X with an average score of 80959 (1.3% behind). For the RX 7600M, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT LP with 63830 (0.1% ahead).

Q: Is the RX 7600M a mobile chip?

A: Yes, the RX 7600M is part of the Radeon RX 7000 series, codenamed "Hotpink Bonefish", and is listed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors.

Q: Which card has a longer production status?

A: The PRO W6600 is marked as end-of-life, while the RX 7600M is listed as active production.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different RDNA generations. The PRO W6600 uses RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 23 chip, while the RX 7600M uses RDNA 3.0 with the Navi 33 chip. The process node differs: the PRO W6600 is built on TSMC's 7 nm process, and the RX 7600M on TSMC's 6 nm process. The RX 7600M has a smaller die size at 204 mm² versus 237 mm² for the PRO W6600, yet it packs more transistors: 13,300 million versus 11,060 million. That yields a higher transistor density for the RX 7600M at 65.2M per mm², compared to 46.7M per mm² for the PRO W6600.

The shading units, texture mapping units, and raster operation units are identical in count: 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Both also have 28 ray tracing cores. The RX 7600M has a distinct "game" clock of 2070 MHz, a specification the PRO W6600 does not list. The base clocks differ significantly: the PRO W6600 has a base clock of 2331 MHz, while the RX 7600M has a base clock of 1500 MHz. The boost clocks are closer, with the PRO W6600 at 2580 MHz and the RX 7600M at 2410 MHz.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity and type: both have 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The RX 7600M offers higher bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s, and a faster effective memory speed of 16 Gbps versus 14 Gbps. The RX 7600M also uses a wider PCIe interface, PCIe 4.0 x16, compared to the PRO W6600's PCIe 4.0 x8. The PRO W6600 has four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the RX 7600M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent", reflecting its mobile nature.

The RX 7600M has a lower TDP at 90 W, compared to 100 W for the PRO W6600, and requires no power connectors, whereas the PRO W6600 uses a single 6-pin connector. The PRO W6600 also has a suggested PSU rating of 300 W, which the RX 7600M does not list. The PRO W6600 is a single-slot card with a length of 241 mm (9.5 inches), while the RX 7600M is an IGP with no dimensions recorded.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows several fields where the two cards diverge. The process node is 7 nm for the PRO W6600 and 6 nm for the RX 7600M. The chip names are Navi 23 and Navi 33, respectively. The architecture is RDNA 2.0 versus RDNA 3.0. The codename field is empty for the PRO W6600 but is "Hotpink Bonefish" for the RX 7600M. The generation entries differ: "Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series)" for the PRO W6600 and "Navi Mobile (RX 7000M)" for the RX 7600M.

Transistor count is 11,060 million versus 13,300 million, and die size is 237 mm² versus 204 mm². Transistor density is 46.7M per mm² versus 65.2M per mm². Base clock is 2331 MHz versus 1500 MHz. Boost clock is 2580 MHz versus 2410 MHz. The RX 7600M has a game clock of 2070 MHz, which the PRO W6600 does not have. Memory clock is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). Memory bandwidth is 224.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s.

Pixel rate is 165.1 GPixel/s versus 154.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 289.0 GTexel/s versus 269.9 GTexel/s. FP32 is 9.247 TFLOPS versus 17.27 TFLOPS. FP16 is 18.49 TFLOPS versus 34.55 TFLOPS. TDP is 100 W versus 90 W. Slot width is single-slot versus IGP. Power connectors are 1x 6-pin versus none. Suggested PSU is 300 W versus not listed. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus "Portable Device Dependent". Length is 241 mm versus not listed. Production status is end-of-life versus active. Release date is June 2021 versus January 2023. The PRO W6600 has a launch MSRP of 649 USD, while the RX 7600M has no launch MSRP listed.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 as the stronger performer in the one recorded benchmark. A 15.3% lead in OpenCL is substantial, and the PRO W6600 also has a higher average score overall (81995 versus 63775) and a higher percentile rank (92nd versus 89th). The PRO W6600 achieves this despite having lower theoretical FP32 throughput, which suggests that its RDNA 2.0 architecture, higher base and boost clocks, and possibly more mature drivers deliver better real-world results in this workload.

For users prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL, the PRO W6600 is the clear choice based on the recorded data. Its end-of-life status may be a concern for long-term availability, but the benchmark result stands. The RX 7600M, being active and mobile, offers a lower power draw (90 W versus 100 W) and a more compact form factor as an IGP, but it loses the only direct comparison. The absence of a Vulkan or Metal score for the RX 7600M means there is no evidence it can outperform the PRO W6600 in those APIs either.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon PRO W6600: The PRO W6600 wins in the direct OpenCL benchmark, with a 15.3% higher score (73514 versus 63775). It also has a higher pixel rate (165.1 GPixel/s versus 154.2 GPixel/s), a higher texture rate (289.0 GTexel/s versus 269.9 GTexel/s), and a higher boost clock (2580 MHz versus 2410 MHz). Its average benchmark score is 28.5% higher than the RX 7600M's, and it sits in a higher percentile. For desktop users with a single-slot slot and a 6-pin power connector, the PRO W6600 offers four DisplayPort outputs and a suggested PSU of 300 W. The data supports it as the better compute performer.

AMD Radeon RX 7600M: The RX 7600M wins on specification sheets, not benchmarks. It has a significantly higher FP32 throughput (17.27 TFLOPS versus 9.247 TFLOPS) and FP16 throughput (34.55 TFLOPS versus 18.49 TFLOPS). It offers more memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s), a wider PCIe interface (x16 versus x8), a smaller die (204 mm² versus 237 mm²), and a higher transistor density (65.2M per mm² versus 46.7M per mm²). It draws less power (90 W versus 100 W) and requires no external power connectors, making it suitable for portable devices. However, none of these advantages appear in the recorded benchmark, so the RX 7600M's wins are purely on paper. For a mobile or low-power integrated solution, the RX 7600M is the only viable option; for performance, the PRO W6600 leads.