AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A4500 and AMD Radeon PRO W6600 are both end-of-life workstation graphics cards aimed at professional workflows, but the benchmark data reveals they occupy very different performance tiers. The RTX A4500 is built on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture with a massive GA102 chip, while the Radeon PRO W6600 uses AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture with a smaller Navi 23 die. Across the two shared DirectX and compute tests, the RTX A4500 wins decisively, though the W6600 offers a much lower power draw and a smaller physical footprint.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is starkly one-sided. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX A4500 scores 141,837, while the Radeon PRO W6600 manages 73,514. That is a delta of 92.9% — the A4500 nearly doubles the W6600’s compute throughput. This is the single largest gap between the two cards in any benchmark, and it reflects the enormous difference in raw shading power: the A4500 delivers 23.65 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 9.247 TFLOPS for the W6600.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though with a slightly smaller margin. Here the RTX A4500 scores 129,980, against 78,428 for the W6600, a 65.7% advantage. While the gap narrows, it remains overwhelming. The A4500’s higher texture rate (369.6 GTexel/s vs. 289.0 GTexel/s) and larger memory bandwidth (640.0 GB/s vs. 224.0 GB/s) contribute to this sustained lead in graphics-heavy workloads.

Interestingly, the W6600 actually posts a higher pixel rate — 165.1 GPixel/s versus 158.4 GPixel/s for the A4500. This means that in pure rasterization at the pixel level, the AMD card is marginally faster. However, this advantage does not translate into benchmark wins, as the A4500’s superior fill rate in other stages and its massive compute advantage dominate the overall scores. The data shows 2 wins for the RTX A4500 and 0 for the Radeon PRO W6600 in the head-to-head suite.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is profound. The RTX A4500 uses the GA102 chip on Samsung’s 8 nm process, packing 28,300 million transistors onto a 628 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 45.1M per mm². In contrast, the W6600 uses the Navi 23 chip on TSMC’s 7 nm process, with just 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, giving a slightly higher density of 46.7M per mm². The process node difference (8 nm vs. 7 nm) is notable, but the A4500’s sheer die size — nearly three times larger — is the dominant factor.

Core counts are wildly different. The A4500 has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, alongside 56 ray tracing cores and 224 tensor cores. The W6600 has only 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 28 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores at all. The A4500’s tensor cores are a key differentiator for AI-accelerated workloads, a feature entirely absent from the AMD card. The FP16 performance also diverges: the A4500 runs FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (23.65 TFLOPS), while the W6600 uses a 2:1 ratio, offering 18.49 TFLOPS FP16 against its 9.247 TFLOPS FP32.

Memory configurations reinforce the performance gap. The A4500 features 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, delivering 640.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6600 has just 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s. Clock speeds favor AMD, though: the W6600 boosts to 2580 MHz, while the A4500 boosts to only 1650 MHz. The W6600’s higher clocks partially compensate for its fewer cores, but not nearly enough to close the compute gap.

Power and physical size also differ sharply. The A4500 has a 200 W TDP and requires a dual-slot cooler with a single 8-pin power connector, plus a suggested 550 W PSU. The W6600 draws just 100 W, fits in a single-slot design, uses a 6-pin connector, and needs only a 300 W PSU. The A4500 is 267 mm long, while the W6600 is shorter at 241 mm. Both cards use PCIe 4.0, but the A4500 runs at x16 while the W6600 uses x8. Display outputs are identical: four DisplayPort 1.4a ports on each.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A4500 wins in every measured benchmark, but the context matters. Its 92.9% lead in OpenCL and 65.7% lead in Vulkan make it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, simulation, or any workload that leverages FP32 or FP16 throughput. The 20 GB memory capacity is also a major advantage for large datasets, such as 3D scene geometry or high-resolution textures, which would quickly exhaust the W6600’s 8 GB frame buffer.

The W6600’s wins are not in benchmarks but in efficiency and form factor. At 100 W TDP, it draws half the power of the A4500’s 200 W, and its single-slot design makes it far easier to fit into dense workstations or multi-GPU configurations. The W6600’s higher pixel rate (165.1 GPixel/s) suggests it could edge out the A4500 in specific rasterization-only scenarios, though no benchmark in the data confirms this. For users with a 300 W PSU or limited internal space, the W6600 is the only viable option between the two.

The A4500 also holds a decisive edge in the broader GPU landscape. Its average benchmark score of 91,671 places it at the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the W6600’s 81,995 average lands at the 92nd percentile. The A4500’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (0.9% faster) and the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (4.8% slower), positioning it firmly in the upper mid-range of professional cards. The W6600, by contrast, sits just 1.3% above the Radeon Pro Vega 64X and only 2.7% above the consumer GeForce RTX 5090, showing it competes with a different class of hardware.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more raw compute power?

A: The RTX A4500. It delivers 23.65 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Radeon PRO W6600 manages 9.247 TFLOPS. This translates to a 92.9% higher OpenCL score for the A4500 in head-to-head testing.

Q: Is the W6600 better for any workload?

A: The W6600 has a higher pixel rate (165.1 GPixel/s vs. 158.4 GPixel/s), which could favor fill-rate-bound tasks. It also consumes only 100 W versus 200 W, making it superior for power-constrained or space-constrained systems.

Q: How do their memory specifications compare?

A: The A4500 has 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 320-bit bus, providing 640.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s. The A4500’s bandwidth is nearly three times higher.

Q: Does the W6600 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, it has 28 ray tracing cores. The A4500 has 56 ray tracing cores, doubling the AMD card’s count, plus 224 tensor cores that the W6600 lacks entirely.

Q: What are the power supply requirements?

A: The A4500 suggests a 550 W PSU with a single 8-pin connector. The W6600 only requires a 300 W PSU with a 6-pin connector. The W6600’s 100 W TDP is half the A4500’s 200 W TDP.

Q: Which card has better driver or API support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The A4500 adds NVIDIA-specific features like tensor cores for AI, but neither card shows a software advantage in the benchmark data.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A4500 is the superior card for performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 92.9% and 65.7%, offers 2.5 times more memory, and delivers over double the FP32 compute. Its 93rd percentile ranking versus the W6600’s 92nd confirms it sits higher in the overall GPU hierarchy. For any professional workload that stresses compute, memory capacity, or bandwidth, the A4500 is the only rational choice between these two.

The Radeon PRO W6600 is not without merit, but its advantages are operational rather than performance-based. Its 100 W TDP and single-slot design make it ideal for multi-GPU arrays or compact workstations where power and space are scarce. The higher pixel rate is a niche benefit that does not manifest in the tested benchmarks. Users who prioritize efficiency and minimal footprint over raw speed should consider the W6600, especially if their workloads are fill-rate-limited and fit within 8 GB of VRAM.

Ultimately, the choice depends on the application. The RTX A4500 dominates in absolute terms and is the pick for compute-heavy professional use. The W6600 is a more efficient, space-saving alternative that trades significant performance for lower power consumption and a smaller physical profile. Benchmark results indicate no scenario where the W6600 outperforms the A4500 in compute or graphics throughput, making the A4500 the definitive winner for users who need maximum performance.