AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs NVIDIA L40S Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity: the NVIDIA L40S dominates the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 in every shared benchmark. In Geekbench OpenCL, the L40S scores 330,727 against the W6600's 73,514, a 349.9% advantage. That is not a marginal lead; it is a generational gap in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan result tells the same story, with the L40S posting 260,799 versus 78,428, a 232.5% delta. Across the two head-to-head tests, the L40S claims 2 wins and the W6600 none.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces how decisive these numbers are. The L40S sits at the 99th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 295,763. Its nearest competitors are the NVIDIA H200 NVL (334,891, 11.7% higher), AMD Instinct MI300X (317,994, 7% higher), NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (287,237, 3% lower), and NVIDIA L40 (284,111, 4.1% lower). The L40S is effectively in the top tier of server accelerators, trading blows with H200 and MI300X while staying ahead of the RTX 6000 Ada and L40.

The W6600, meanwhile, sits at the 92nd percentile with an average score of 81,995. Its nearest rivals are far closer: AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X (80,959, 1.3% lower), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (79,842, 2.7% lower), Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (79,605, 3% lower), and Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB (79,396, 3.3% lower). The W6600 leads this pack, but the margins are slim, 1 to 3 percent. That is a competitive mid-range field where small architectural tweaks decide the ranking. The L40S does not just beat the W6600; it operates in a different performance stratum, roughly 260% higher in average score.

A closer look at the OpenCL result shows the L40S's FP32 throughput advantage is the primary driver. The L40S reaches 91.61 TFLOPS FP32, while the W6600 manages 9.247 TFLOPS, a 10x gap in raw shader output. The Vulkan test narrows the relative gap slightly, which suggests the W6600's RDNA 2.0 architecture handles API overhead more efficiently than its raw compute would imply, but the absolute scores remain lopsided. The L40S's 260,799 Vulkan score still exceeds the W6600's total by a factor of 3.3.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA L40S records an average benchmark score of 295,763, compared to 81,995 for the AMD Radeon PRO W6600. The L40S also ranks at the 99th percentile of all GPUs, while the W6600 ranks at the 92nd.

Q: How large is the performance difference in OpenCL?

A: The L40S scores 330,727 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the W6600 scores 73,514. This yields a 349.9% delta in favor of the L40S, the largest margin recorded in the head-to-head tests.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the W6600 wins?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), and the L40S wins both. The W6600 has a separate Metal benchmark score of 94,042, but no comparable Metal result exists for the L40S, so it cannot be used for a direct comparison.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the L40S?

A: The nearest rivals are the NVIDIA H200 NVL (11.7% higher average score), AMD Instinct MI300X (7% higher), NVIDIA RTX 6000 Ada Generation (3% lower), and NVIDIA L40 (4.1% lower). The L40S sits between the MI300X and RTX 6000 Ada in the performance hierarchy.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the W6600?

A: The nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X (1.3% lower), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (2.7% lower), Tesla P100 PCIe 16 GB (3% lower), and Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB (3.3% lower). The W6600 leads this group by a narrow margin.

Q: Does the W6600 have any feature that the L40S lacks?

A: The W6600 includes a Metal benchmark score (94,042) and supports four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the L40S offers one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The L40S has no Metal benchmark recorded, and its display output count is lower.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA L40S and AMD Radeon PRO W6600 are built on fundamentally different architectures. The L40S uses the AD102 chip with Ada Lovelace architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The W6600 uses the Navi 23 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, also TSMC but on a 7 nm node. This process gap is significant: the L40S packs 76,300 million transistors onto a 609 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 125.3M per mm². The W6600 has 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, with a density of 46.7M per mm². The L40S achieves nearly 2.7 times the transistor density, a direct consequence of the newer 5 nm node.

The shader configurations diverge sharply. The L40S has 18,176 shading units, 568 TMUs, and 192 ROPs. The W6600 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The L40S carries 142 ray tracing cores and 568 tensor cores, while the W6600 has 28 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores at all. Tensor cores are the defining feature here; the W6600 lacks the dedicated AI acceleration hardware that the L40S provides. That makes the L40S suitable for workloads involving deep learning inference or training, while the W6600 has no such capability.

The L40S's FP16 performance is 91.61 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it does not gain a throughput advantage by using reduced precision. The W6600's FP16 is 18.49 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio, doubling its FP32 rate. This indicates the W6600 was designed for mixed-precision workloads where reduced precision is acceptable, but its absolute FP16 output is still an order of magnitude below the L40S's FP32 alone.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The W6600 has a base clock of 2331 MHz and a boost clock of 2580 MHz, both higher than the L40S's 1110 MHz base and 2520 MHz boost. The W6600 also has a higher memory clock at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus the L40S's 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The L40S compensates with a 384-bit memory bus and 48 GB of GDDR6, delivering 864.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W6600 has a 128-bit bus and 8 GB of GDDR6, with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The L40S offers 3.9 times the memory bandwidth and 6 times the memory capacity.

The pixel and texture rates reinforce the compute gap. The L40S achieves 483.8 GPixel/s and 1,431.4 GTexel/s. The W6600 achieves 165.1 GPixel/s and 289.0 GTexel/s. The L40S's texture rate is nearly 5 times higher, reflecting its 568 TMUs against the W6600's 112. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is not a differentiator.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The L40S uses a 5 nm process with 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die, while the W6600 uses 7 nm with 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die. Memory capacity is 48 GB versus 8 GB, both GDDR6, but the bus width differs at 384 bit versus 128 bit, giving bandwidth of 864.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s. The L40S has 18,176 shading units, 568 TMUs, 192 ROPs, 142 RT cores, and 568 tensor cores. The W6600 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 28 RT cores, and no tensor cores.

FP32 compute is 91.61 TFLOPS for the L40S and 9.247 TFLOPS for the W6600. FP16 is 91.61 TFLOPS (1:1) for the L40S and 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1) for the W6600. The base clock is lower on the L40S (1110 MHz versus 2331 MHz), but the boost clock is closer (2520 MHz versus 2580 MHz). Memory clock is 2250 MHz (18 Gbps) on the L40S and 1750 MHz (14 Gbps) on the W6600.

Power consumption differs by a factor of 3: the L40S has a TDP of 300 W with a dual-slot cooler and a single 16-pin connector, while the W6600 has a TDP of 100 W with a single-slot cooler and a single 6-pin connector. The suggested PSU is 700 W for the L40S and 300 W for the W6600. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for the L40S and PCIe 4.0 x8 for the W6600. Physical dimensions: the L40S is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall, while the W6600 is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long.

Display outputs differ: the L40S has one HDMI 2.1 and three DisplayPort 1.4a, while the W6600 has four DisplayPort 1.4a and no HDMI. The L40S was released on 2022-10-12, and the W6600 on 2021-06-07. Both are end-of-life products. The W6600 has a launch MSRP of 649 USD, while the L40S has no recorded launch MSRP. The L40S's predecessor is Server Ampere and its successor is Server Hopper; the W6600's predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega and it has no successor.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the NVIDIA L40S is the superior GPU by every measured metric. Its average benchmark score of 295,763 is 3.6 times the W6600's 81,995. The L40S wins both head-to-head tests with deltas of 349.9% in OpenCL and 232.5% in Vulkan. For workloads that rely on raw compute, memory bandwidth, or AI acceleration, the L40S is the only viable choice from this pairing.

The W6600 is not without merit, but its strengths are in different domains. Its 100 W TDP and single-slot design make it far more power-efficient per watt. Its 4x DisplayPort outputs exceed the L40S's 1x HDMI + 3x DisplayPort configuration. Its higher base clock (2331 MHz) suggests better responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks, though the L40S's boost clock (2520 MHz) nearly matches it. The W6600's launch MSRP of 649 USD is recorded, but the L40S has no launch MSRP to compare.

Choose the L40S for compute-heavy professional workloads: rendering, simulation, machine learning, or any task where the 48 GB memory capacity and 864.0 GB/s bandwidth prevent out-of-memory failures and data bottlenecks. Choose the W6600 for multi-display workstation setups where power draw is a constraint, the single-slot form factor is required, and the workload fits within 8 GB of VRAM. The W6600's nearest rivals are all within 3.3% of its average score, so it competes in a tight cluster; the L40S's nearest rivals span an 18.7% range, placing it in a higher performance class entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA L40S wins in compute-bound scenarios. Its 91.61 TFLOPS FP32 and 91.61 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1) dwarf the W6600's 9.247 TFLOPS FP32 and 18.49 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The 48 GB memory buffer with 864.0 GB/s bandwidth suits large datasets, high-resolution textures, or in-memory model inference. The 568 tensor cores provide dedicated hardware for AI workloads, something the W6600 lacks entirely. The 142 RT cores also give the L40S a hardware advantage in ray-traced rendering, though the W6600's 28 RT cores can handle basic ray tracing at lower resolutions.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 wins in compact, low-power deployments. Its 100 W TDP allows installation in systems with a 300 W PSU, whereas the L40S requires a 700 W PSU. The single-slot design fits in denser chassis, while the L40S needs two slots. The four DisplayPort outputs support quad-monitor setups natively, while the L40S's three DisplayPort plus one HDMI limits simultaneous display count. The W6600's higher base clock (2331 MHz) may provide snappier response in driver-bound or latency-sensitive tasks, though its boost clock (2580 MHz) is only 60 MHz higher than the L40S's.

For OpenCL workloads, the L40S is the clear winner with a 349.9% margin. For Vulkan workloads, the L40S still wins by 232.5%, but the smaller relative gap suggests the W6600's RDNA 2.0 architecture handles modern graphics APIs more efficiently per unit of compute. The W6600's Metal score of 94,042 is notable but has no L40S counterpart, so it cannot be compared directly. In the database's percentile rankings, the L40S sits at 99th versus the W6600's 92nd, which places the W6600 in the top decile but far from the elite tier the L40S occupies.