AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

# NVIDIA RTX A5500 vs AMD Radeon PRO W6600

The recorded data places these two workstation GPUs in different performance tiers. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 achieves an average benchmark score of 165,217, sitting in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 averages 81,995, which places it in the 92nd percentile. The gap is substantial: in Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A5500 scores 174,637 against 73,514 for the W6600, a delta of 137.6%. In Vulkan, the RTX A5500 scores 155,797 versus 78,428, a delta of 98.6%. Both cards are end-of-life products, but they target very different workloads and power envelopes.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 delivers 768.0 GB/s across a 384-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 provides 224.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. That is a 3.4x advantage in raw bandwidth for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw compute throughput?

A: The RTX A5500 reaches 34.10 TFLOPS FP32 and 34.10 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio), while the W6600 delivers 9.247 TFLOPS FP32 and 18.49 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The NVIDIA card is roughly 3.7x faster in FP32 and about 1.8x faster in FP16.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RTX A5500 has a TDP of 230 W with a single 8-pin power connector and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The W6600 has a TDP of 100 W, uses a single 6-pin connector, and recommends a 300 W PSU.

Q: Which card supports hardware ray tracing?

A: Both cards support ray tracing. The RTX A5500 includes 80 RT cores, while the W6600 includes 28 RT cores. The NVIDIA card also adds 320 tensor cores, which the AMD card lacks entirely.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The RTX A5500 is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 and 2% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X. The W6600 is 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X and 3.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB.

Q: What is the physical size difference?

A: The RTX A5500 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm in length and 112 mm in height. The W6600 is a single-slot card at 241 mm in length. The AMD card is shorter and occupies only one expansion slot.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 is built on the Ampere architecture using the GA102 chip, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. The die measures 628 mm² and contains 28,300 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 45.1 million per mm². The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, produced by TSMC on a 7 nm process. Its die is 237 mm² with 11,060 million transistors, giving a density of 46.7 million per mm². The AMD chip is smaller and denser, but the NVIDIA chip carries far more hardware resources.

The RTX A5500 packs 10,240 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It also includes 80 RT cores and 320 tensor cores. The W6600 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, plus 28 RT cores and no tensor cores. The shading unit count alone differs by a factor of 5.7. The NVIDIA card also has a much wider memory subsystem: 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, versus 8 GB on a 128-bit bus for the AMD card.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The W6600 runs at a base clock of 2331 MHz and a boost clock of 2580 MHz, significantly higher than the RTX A5500's 1080 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost. The AMD card compensates for its smaller core count with higher frequencies, but the sheer scale of the NVIDIA GPU overwhelms that advantage. Memory clocks also differ: the RTX A5500 runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the W6600 runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both provide four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The bus interfaces differ: the RTX A5500 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the W6600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The RTX A5500 has a 230 W TDP and requires a dual-slot cooler; the W6600 fits in a single slot with a 100 W TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a decisive NVIDIA victory in both recorded tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A5500 scores 174,637 against the W6600's 73,514, a delta of 137.6%. This is not a marginal gap; it represents more than double the absolute score. The RTX A5500's FP32 throughput of 34.10 TFLOPS versus 9.247 TFLOPS explains much of this difference, as OpenCL workloads often scale with raw shader compute.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX A5500 scores 155,797, while the W6600 scores 78,428, a delta of 98.6%. The Vulkan gap is slightly smaller in percentage terms but still nearly double the AMD card's result. The RTX A5500's higher texture rate (532.8 GTexel/s versus 289.0 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (159.8 GPixel/s versus 165.1 GPixel/s) contribute to this outcome. Interestingly, the W6600 actually has a slightly higher pixel rate, but the NVIDIA card's massive advantage in texture throughput and shading units dominates the overall score.

The RTX A5500 also benefits from its tensor cores, which can accelerate certain compute workloads even if they are not directly measured in these specific tests. The W6600 has no tensor core equivalent. The memory bandwidth gap of 768.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s further reinforces the NVIDIA card's lead in memory-intensive benchmarks.

The average benchmark scores place this matchup in context. The RTX A5500 averages 165,217, which is 2% behind the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation. The W6600 averages 81,995, which sits 2.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 and 3.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla P100 PCIe 12 GB. The two cards do not compete in the same performance stratum; the RTX A5500's average score is roughly double the W6600's.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node differs: 8 nm Samsung for the RTX A5500, 7 nm TSMC for the W6600. Transistor counts are 28,300 million versus 11,060 million, and die sizes are 628 mm² versus 237 mm². The shading units stand at 10,240 versus 1,792, TMUs at 320 versus 112, and ROPs at 96 versus 64. RT cores are 80 versus 28, and tensor cores exist only on the NVIDIA card (320) with none on the AMD side.

Memory configurations are starkly different: 24 GB GDDR6 with a 384-bit bus and 768.0 GB/s bandwidth on the RTX A5500, versus 8 GB GDDR6 with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s on the W6600. Clock speeds favor the AMD card: base 2331 MHz versus 1080 MHz, boost 2580 MHz versus 1665 MHz. Memory clock is 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on the AMD card versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) on the NVIDIA card.

Compute rates show the NVIDIA card's dominance: FP32 at 34.10 TFLOPS versus 9.247 TFLOPS, and FP16 at 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1). Pixel rates are close at 159.8 GPixel/s versus 165.1 GPixel/s, but texture rates diverge heavily at 532.8 GTexel/s versus 289.0 GTexel/s. Power consumption is 230 W versus 100 W TDP, with slot widths of dual-slot versus single-slot, and power connectors of 1x 8-pin versus 1x 6-pin. The suggested PSU is 550 W versus 300 W. Bus interfaces are PCIe 4.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Dimensions are 267 mm length and 112 mm height versus 241 mm length. The release dates are March 2022 for the NVIDIA card and June 2021 for the AMD card. The AMD card carries a launch MSRP of 649 USD.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear separation of roles. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 is the higher-performance card by a wide margin, with an average benchmark score of 165,217 that places it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 (0.2% behind), the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (0.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X (2% ahead). This is a card for heavy compute workloads, large memory footprints, and tasks that benefit from tensor cores and high bandwidth.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6600, with an average score of 81,995 in the 92nd percentile, is a different class of product. Its rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X (1.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (2.7% behind), and NVIDIA Tesla P100 variants (3% to 3.3% behind). The W6600's advantages lie in efficiency: 100 W TDP, single-slot design, and a 300 W PSU recommendation. It also has a higher pixel rate (165.1 GPixel/s) than the RTX A5500, which could benefit certain rasterization tasks.

The head-to-head benchmarks leave no ambiguity. The RTX A5500 wins both recorded tests by margins of 137.6% in OpenCL and 98.6% in Vulkan. No recorded test favors the W6600. For users who need maximum compute throughput, 24 GB of memory, or ray tracing with tensor acceleration, the RTX A5500 is the obvious choice from this data. For users who prioritize low power draw, compact physical footprint, or a lower launch MSRP (649 USD for the W6600), the AMD card offers a viable alternative, but the performance gap is so large that the W6600 should be considered only for lighter workloads or constrained environments. The recorded scores indicate that these two cards serve different market segments rather than direct competitors.