AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database records a clear overall winner: the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 takes all three head-to-head tests against the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64. Its average benchmark score of 81,995 places it in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX Vega 64's average of 50,001 sits in the 86th percentile. The PRO W6600 is the pick for anyone prioritizing modern compute workloads, particularly Metal API performance where it leads by 36.8%. The RX Vega 64, despite its older architecture, still holds value for those who need raw FP32 throughput on paper, but the measured benchmark results do not support choosing it over the newer card. For professional applications that leverage Vulkan or OpenCL, the PRO W6600 is the stronger option based on recorded scores. For legacy DirectX 12 workloads, the RX Vega 64 has a single benchmark entry, but that one result does not offset its losses across the three Geekbench tests.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly by workload type. The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 wins every recorded benchmark comparison: Geekbench Metal (94,042 vs 68,750), Geekbench OpenCL (73,514 vs 62,552), and Geekbench Vulkan (78,428 vs 67,032). This makes it the definitive choice for cross-platform compute tasks, especially those that stress modern API features. The RX Vega 64's only recorded win is in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where it scores 1,669, but that test has no corresponding PRO W6600 score in the database, so a direct comparison is impossible.

For users working in Metal-centric environments, such as macOS ecosystems or applications optimized for Apple's graphics framework, the PRO W6600's 36.8% advantage is decisive. For OpenCL compute, the PRO W6600 leads by 17.5%, which narrows the gap but still represents a significant performance edge. Vulkan workloads show a 17% advantage for the PRO W6600, indicating consistent superiority across modern graphics APIs. The RX Vega 64's higher shading unit count (4,096 vs 1,792) and higher theoretical FP32 (12.66 TFLOPS vs 9.247 TFLOPS) do not translate into benchmark wins, suggesting architectural inefficiencies in real-world tests.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and foundry processes. The PRO W6600 uses the Navi 23 chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 7 nm TSMC process. The RX Vega 64 uses the Vega 10 chip on GCN 5.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. This process difference is stark: the PRO W6600 packs 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die (46.7M transistors per mm²), while the RX Vega 64 uses 12,500 million transistors across a 495 mm² die (25.3M per mm²). The newer node gives the PRO W6600 nearly double the transistor density.

Memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The PRO W6600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX Vega 64 uses 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 483.8 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the RX Vega 64's 2.16x bandwidth advantage, the PRO W6600 still wins all compute benchmarks, indicating that bandwidth is not the limiting factor in these tests.

Clock speeds also diverge significantly. The PRO W6600 runs at a base clock of 2331 MHz and boosts to 2580 MHz, while the RX Vega 64 operates at 1247 MHz base and 1546 MHz boost. The PRO W6600's clocks are roughly 87% higher at base and 67% higher at boost, contributing to its efficiency. The RX Vega 64 has 4,096 shading units and 256 TMUs versus 1,792 shading units and 112 TMUs on the PRO W6600, but the newer architecture extracts more performance per shader.

The PRO W6600 includes 28 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the RX Vega 64. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX Vega 64 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. The PRO W6600 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the RX Vega 64 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Power consumption differs by a wide margin: the PRO W6600 has a TDP of 100 W with a single 6-pin connector and a suggested 300 W PSU, while the RX Vega 64 draws 295 W with dual 8-pin connectors and a suggested 600 W PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 records an average benchmark score of 81,995, which is 64% higher than the RX Vega 64's 50,001 average.

Q: Is the RX Vega 64 better in any benchmark?

A: The RX Vega 64 has a recorded score of 1,669 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, but the PRO W6600 has no corresponding score in that test, so no direct comparison exists. In all shared tests, the PRO W6600 wins.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The RX Vega 64 offers 483.8 GB/s via HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, while the PRO W6600 provides 224.0 GB/s via GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The RX Vega 64 has 2.16x more bandwidth, yet the PRO W6600 still wins all compute benchmarks.

Q: What is the performance gap in Metal workloads?

A: The PRO W6600 scores 94,042 in Geekbench Metal compared to the RX Vega 64's 68,750, a 36.8% advantage for the newer card.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the PRO W6600 includes 28 ray tracing cores. The RX Vega 64 has no ray tracing hardware.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The PRO W6600 has a 100 W TDP with a single 6-pin connector and suggests a 300 W PSU. The RX Vega 64 has a 295 W TDP with dual 8-pin connectors and suggests a 600 W PSU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The three shared benchmarks all favor the PRO W6600, but the margins vary meaningfully. The largest gap appears in Geekbench Metal, where the PRO W6600 scores 94,042 against the RX Vega 64's 68,750. This 36.8% delta is the most pronounced difference in the dataset, and it suggests that Metal compute workloads benefit disproportionately from the newer RDNA 2.0 architecture's scheduling and instruction handling. The PRO W6600's 28 ray tracing cores may contribute to this advantage, as Metal compute can leverage hardware-accelerated intersection tests.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a narrower but still substantial lead: 73,514 for the PRO W6600 versus 62,552 for the RX Vega 64, a 17.5% delta. OpenCL is a more mature API that both architectures support well, yet the efficiency gains from the 7 nm process and higher clock speeds (2331 MHz base vs 1247 MHz base) still produce a clear winner. The RX Vega 64's theoretical FP32 advantage (12.66 TFLOPS vs 9.247 TFLOPS) does not overcome the PRO W6600's per-clock efficiency.

Geekbench Vulkan mirrors the OpenCL result closely: 78,428 for the PRO W6600 versus 67,032 for the RX Vega 64, a 17% delta. Vulkan's low-level nature tends to reward architectures with better hardware utilization, and the RDNA 2.0 design delivers here. The PRO W6600's support for Vulkan 1.4 versus the RX Vega 64's Vulkan 1.3 may also play a role, as newer API versions include optimizations for descriptor management and pipeline compilation.

The RX Vega 64's sole benchmark entry, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, records a score of 1,669. This test is designed for DirectX 12 Ultimate hardware, which the RX Vega 64 does not fully support (it only reaches DirectX 12_1). The PRO W6600 has no entry in this test, so the database cannot confirm whether its DirectX 12 Ultimate support would yield a higher score. However, given that the PRO W6600 supports the full 12_2 feature set including ray tracing, it would likely perform competitively if tested.

Across all three comparable benchmarks, the PRO W6600's win margins are consistent: 36.8%, 17.5%, and 17%. This pattern indicates that the architectural advantages of RDNA 2.0 are not workload-specific but rather a general improvement across compute APIs. The RX Vega 64's higher bandwidth (483.8 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s) and greater shading unit count (4,096 vs 1,792) cannot compensate for its lower clocks and older instruction set.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W6600 | AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 5.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Transistors | 11,060 million | 12,500 million |

| Die Size | 237 mm² | 495 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 46.7M / mm² | 25.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2331 MHz | 1247 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2580 MHz | 1546 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 2048 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 945 MHz (1890 Mbps effective) |

| Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 483.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 4096 |

| TMUs | 112 | 256 |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 165.1 GPixel/s | 98.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 289.0 GTexel/s | 395.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 9.247 TFLOPS | 12.66 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1) | 25.33 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | 295 W |

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

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 600 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Dimensions | 241 mm length (9.5 inches) | 280 mm length (11 inches), 111 mm height (4.4 inches), 40 mm width (1.6 inches) |

| Release Date | 2021-06-07 | 2017-08-06 |

| Launch MSRP | 649 USD | 499 USD |

The PRO W6600 is a single-slot card at 241 mm, while the RX Vega 64 requires dual slots and measures 280 mm. The PRO W6600's 100 W TDP allows for a 300 W PSU recommendation, whereas the RX Vega 64's 295 W TDP demands a 600 W PSU. The PRO W6600 offers four DisplayPort outputs, while the RX Vega 64 provides one HDMI and three DisplayPort connections. The RX Vega 64 retains higher texture rate (395.8 GTexel/s vs 289.0 GTexel/s) and higher theoretical FP32 (12.66 vs 9.247 TFLOPS), but these specifications do not translate into benchmark victories.