AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation and the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 occupy very different positions in the professional GPU landscape, and the recorded benchmark data makes the gap unmistakable. Both share the same display configuration and API support, but the RTX 4500 Ada Generation sits in the 97th percentile of all GPUs in the database while the Radeon PRO W6600 sits in the 92nd, and the head-to-head results show the NVIDIA card more than doubling its rival's scores in every shared test. This analysis walks through the benchmark results, the architectural reasons behind them, and where each card still makes sense.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two tests exist in the database for both cards, and the RTX 4500 Ada Generation wins both decisively.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX 4500 Ada Generation scored 160786 against the Radeon PRO W6600's 73514, a delta of 118.7 percent in NVIDIA's favor. That is not a narrow victory; the Ada card delivers more than twice the compute throughput in this workload. The Vulkan result tells the same story: 171401 for the RTX 4500 Ada Generation versus 78428 for the W6600, a 118.5 percent advantage. The near-identical margins across two different APIs indicate the gap is architectural rather than an artifact of driver or API optimization. Whether the workload runs through OpenCL or Vulkan, the outcome is effectively the same.

The context around each card reinforces this. The RTX 4500 Ada Generation's average benchmark score of 166094 places it in a tight cluster with serious professional hardware: the NVIDIA RTX A5500 sits within 0.5 percent, the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 within 0.7 percent, and the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X is actually 1.5 percent ahead. It also edges out the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB by 2.2 percent. The W6600's average of 81995 puts it near the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X (1.3 percent behind the AMD card), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (2.7 percent), and the Tesla P100 PCIe variants (3.0 and 3.3 percent). In short, one card competes against current high-end workstation parts, the other against legacy and older compute hardware.

The W6600 does have one recorded result the NVIDIA card lacks: a Geekbench Metal score of 94042, relevant for macOS-based workflows. It remains the only benchmark data point where the AMD card stands alone.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are separated by a full process-node generation. The RTX 4500 Ada Generation uses TSMC's 5 nm process with the AD103 chip, packing 45,900 million transistors into a 379 mm² die for a density of 121.1M per mm². The W6600's Navi 23 chip is built on TSMC 7 nm with 11,060 million transistors across 237 mm², yielding 46.7M per mm². The Ada card has roughly four times the transistor count on a larger die built with a denser process, and that investment translates directly into the benchmark gap.

The execution-resource disparity is just as stark. The RTX 4500 Ada Generation has 7680 shading units, 240 TMUs, 80 ROPs, 60 RT cores, and 240 tensor cores. The W6600 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 28 RT cores, and no dedicated tensor cores at all. That last point matters for machine learning and AI-accelerated applications: the NVIDIA card has hardware explicitly designed for matrix workloads, while the AMD card must rely on its shader arrays, and its FP16 rate of 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1) actually exceeds its FP32 rate of 9.247 TFLOPS, whereas the Ada card runs FP16 at a full 1:1 with its 39.63 TFLOPS FP32 figure.

Memory is another dividing line. The RTX 4500 Ada Generation carries 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth and memory clocked at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The W6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and 1750 MHz memory (14 Gbps effective). Three times the memory capacity and nearly double the bandwidth means the Ada card can hold substantially larger datasets, scenes, and models entirely on the GPU.

Clocks are closer than you might expect. Both cards boost to 2580 MHz; the W6600 actually has the higher base clock at 2331 MHz versus 2070 MHz. The difference is that the Ada card boosts far more silicon to that frequency, which is why its theoretical rates dwarf the AMD card's: 206.4 GPixel/s versus 165.1 GPixel/s for pixel fill, and 619.2 GTexel/s versus 289.0 GTexel/s for texture fill.

Power and physical requirements diverge sharply. The Ada card has a 210 W TDP, needs no external power connectors, and requires a suggested 550 W PSU; it occupies a dual-slot form factor with a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface. The W6600 runs at 100 W, uses a single 6-pin connector, suggests a 300 W PSU, fits in a single slot, and connects over PCIe 4.0 x8, half the host bandwidth of its rival. Both are similar in length, 245 mm for the NVIDIA card and 241 mm for the AMD card, and both offer four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs with identical API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Their market positions also differ. The RTX 4500 Ada Generation is an active product, released 2023-08-08, following Workstation Ampere and preceding Blackwell PRO W. The W6600 is end-of-life, released 2021-06-07, succeeding Radeon Pro Vega with no listed successor, and carried a launch MSRP of 649 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clean sweep for the RTX 4500 Ada Generation in raw compute. Two benchmark wins from two shared tests, both by roughly 118 percent, mean any workload resembling these tests, general GPU compute through OpenCL or Vulkan, rendering, simulation, and anything leveraging the 240 tensor cores, favors the NVIDIA card overwhelmingly. Its competitive positioning against the RTX A5500, Radeon PRO W7800, Pro W6900X, and A100 PCIe 40 GB confirms it belongs in high-end professional discussions, and its 24 GB frame buffer makes it suitable for large assemblies, high-resolution textures, and sizable ML models that would simply not fit in 8 GB.

The Radeon PRO W6600's case rests on physical and power efficiency rather than performance. Its single-slot design and 100 W TDP allow deployment in compact workstations and systems where a dual-slot, 210 W card is not an option. Its recorded Geekbench Metal score of 94042 gives it documented relevance for Mac-oriented pipelines. Against its own peer group, the Vega 64X, GeForce RTX 5090, and Tesla P100 variants, it holds its ground, sitting above all of them by 1.3 to 3.3 percent. For modest workloads where slot count, power draw, and PCIe lane constraints matter more than throughput, it remains a defensible choice, though its end-of-life status should factor into any procurement decision.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RTX 4500 Ada Generation in benchmarks?

A: It won both shared tests by large margins: 118.7 percent in Geekbench OpenCL (160786 vs 73514) and 118.5 percent in Geekbench Vulkan (171401 vs 78428).

Q: Do both cards support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The RTX 4500 Ada Generation has 60 RT cores and the W6600 has 28, and both report DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support.

Q: Which card is better for machine learning workloads?

A: The RTX 4500 Ada Generation. It has 240 dedicated tensor cores, 24 GB of memory, and 39.63 TFLOPS of FP32 with 1:1 FP16, while the W6600 has no tensor cores, 8 GB of memory, and 9.247 TFLOPS FP32.

Q: Can the Radeon PRO W6600 fit in a single-slot system?

A: Yes. It is a single-slot card with a 100 W TDP, one 6-pin connector, and a suggested 300 W PSU, compared to the dual-slot, 210 W Ada card.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. The RTX 4500 Ada Generation is active; the Radeon PRO W6600 is end-of-life. They were released 2023-08-08 and 2021-06-07 respectively.

Q: How do they compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 4500 Ada Generation delivers 432.0 GB/s over a 192-bit bus; the W6600 delivers 224.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, roughly half the throughput.

Specification Differences

• Architecture: Ada Lovelace (AD103) vs RDNA 2.0 (Navi 23)
• Process node: 5 nm vs 7 nm, both TSMC
• Transistors: 45,900 million vs 11,060 million
• Die size: 379 mm² vs 237 mm²
• Transistor density: 121.1M/mm² vs 46.7M/mm²
• Base clock: 2070 MHz vs 2331 MHz
• Boost clock: 2580 MHz on both
• Memory: 24 GB GDDR6, 192-bit, 432.0 GB/s vs 8 GB GDDR6, 128-bit, 224.0 GB/s
• Memory speed: 18 Gbps effective vs 14 Gbps effective
• Shading units: 7680 vs 1792
• TMUs: 240 vs 112
• ROPs: 80 vs 64
• RT cores: 60 vs 28
• Tensor cores: 240 vs none
• FP32: 39.63 TFLOPS vs 9.247 TFLOPS
• FP16: 39.63 TFLOPS (1:1) vs 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 210 W vs 100 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot vs single-slot
• Power connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: 550 W vs 300 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x8
• Length: 245 mm vs 241 mm
• Production status: Active vs end-of-life
• Release date: 2023-08-08 vs 2021-06-07
• Percentile vs all GPUs: 97th vs 92nd