AMD Radeon Pro W6600M vs AMD Radeon Pro W6600X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The database clearly separates these two AMD Radeon Pro parts by workload environment rather than by raw capability. The W6600X is the desktop-class, Mac-bound solution with a single recorded Geekbench Metal score of 107,342, placing it in the 94th percentile of all GPUs tracked. That score puts it 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo and 5.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000, while trailing the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II by 2.1% and the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 by 3.1%. The W6600M, by contrast, is a mobile part with its average benchmark score of 61,896, derived from OpenCL and Vulkan tests, landing in the 89th percentile. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: it sits 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon 8050S, and 2.6% ahead of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 and the Intel Arc Pro A60, with a 2.9% margin over the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48.

The W6600X wins on compute throughput in every measured metric. Its FP32 output is 10.15 TFLOPS against 7.290 TFLOPS for the W6600M, a 39% advantage. The FP16 figures follow the same pattern: 20.31 TFLOPS versus 14.58 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio. Texture rate is 317.3 GTexel/s versus 227.8 GTexel/s, and pixel rate is 158.7 GPixel/s versus 130.2 GPixel/s. The W6600M does not win any recorded benchmark category, but its role is different: it is an integrated-grade mobile part with a 90 W TDP, no power connectors, and a portable-device-dependent display output, designed for laptops where the W6600X, with its 120 W TDP, dual-slot footprint, and Apple MPX bus interface, cannot operate.

The use-case split is therefore environmental. The W6600X is for fixed Mac Pro-class systems that can support its power draw and physical size. The W6600M is for mobile workstations that need RDNA 2.0 features in a constrained thermal envelope. Neither part has a head-to-head benchmark entry in the database, so the comparison rests on the standalone scores and the hardware specifications.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental silicon. The chip is Navi 23 in both cases, built on TSMC's 7 nm process, with 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7M per mm². The architecture is RDNA 2.0 for both, and both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The differences begin at the configuration level. The W6600X activates 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray accelerators. The W6600M scales down to 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray accelerators. That means the W6600X has 14% more shading units, 14% more TMUs, and 14% more ray accelerators, while ROP count stays identical at 64.

Clock speeds diverge substantially. The W6600X runs at a 2068 MHz base and 2479 MHz boost, while the W6600M sits at 1224 MHz base and 2034 MHz boost. The boost difference is 22%, but the base clock gap is 69%, which explains part of the compute disparity. Memory also differs. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but the W6600X runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6600M runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective, for 224.0 GB/s. That is a 14% bandwidth advantage for the W6600X.

Physical and platform differences are stark. The W6600X is dual-slot, uses the Apple MPX bus interface, has no display outputs, and lists a suggested PSU of 300 W. The W6600M is an IGP, uses PCIe 4.0 x16, has no power connectors, and its display outputs are portable-device dependent. The W6600X drew a launch MSRP of 699 USD. The W6600M has no recorded MSRP. Neither part has a successor listed, but the W6600M lists a predecessor: FirePro Mobile.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the W6600X is the stronger GPU in raw performance, and the W6600M is the mobile adaptation of the same architecture with fewer resources. The W6600X's Metal score of 107,342 versus the W6600M's average of 61,896 is not a direct comparison because the tests differ, but the specification sheet supports the ranking. The W6600X has higher clocks, more execution units, and more memory bandwidth. In FP32, it leads by 39%; in texture rate, by 39%; in pixel rate, by 22%; in memory bandwidth, by 14%. The W6600M cannot close those gaps at 90 W against the W6600X's 120 W.

The choice depends on the platform. If the system is a Mac with Apple MPX support and dual-slot clearance, the W6600X is the only one of the two that fits, and it is end-of-life but still tracked in the 94th percentile. If the system is a laptop with PCIe 4.0 x16 and no discrete power connector, the W6600M is the relevant part, sitting in the 89th percentile. There is no scenario where the W6600M outperforms the W6600X in the measured metrics. The verdict is straightforward: pick the W6600X for maximum compute in a desktop Mac, pick the W6600M for a mobile workstation, and accept the performance trade-off as a function of power and physical constraints.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The W6600X records 10.15 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the W6600M records 7.290 TFLOPS. That is a 39% advantage for the W6600X.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same chip and manufacturing process?

A: Yes. Both use the Navi 23 chip on TSMC's 7 nm process, with 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The W6600X has 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 16 Gbps effective GDDR6, while the W6600M has 224.0 GB/s from 14 Gbps effective GDDR6. The W6600X leads by 14%.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The W6600X has 32 ray accelerators, and the W6600M has 28. Both are RDNA 2.0 parts with DirectX 12 Ultimate support.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare for the W6600X?

A: The W6600X is 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo and 5.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000, while trailing the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II by 2.1% and the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 by 3.1%.

Q: What is the W6600M's standing among its closest competitors?

A: The W6600M is 0.3% behind the AMD Radeon 8050S, and 2.6% ahead of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 and the Intel Arc Pro A60, with a 2.9% lead over the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the W6600X and the W6600M. The comparison must therefore be drawn from the individual recorded scores and the specification deltas. The W6600X has one benchmark entry: Geekbench Metal at 107,342. The W6600M has two entries: Geekbench OpenCL at 56,140 and Geekbench Vulkan at 67,652, with an average benchmark score of 61,896. Because the tests differ, a direct numeric comparison is not valid, but the percentile ranks tell the story. The W6600X is in the 94th percentile of all GPUs, while the W6600M is in the 89th.

The biggest wins for the W6600X are in the compute-oriented specifications. FP32 performance is 10.15 TFLOPS versus 7.290 TFLOPS, a 2.86 TFLOPS gap. FP16 performance is 20.31 TFLOPS versus 14.58 TFLOPS, a 5.73 TFLOPS gap. Texture rate is 317.3 GTexel/s versus 227.8 GTexel/s, a 39% difference. Pixel rate is 158.7 GPixel/s versus 130.2 GPixel/s, a 22% difference. Memory bandwidth is 256.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s, a 14% difference. These are all advantages for the W6600X, and they compound because the W6600X also runs at a higher boost clock: 2479 MHz versus 2034 MHz.

The W6600M has no wins in any recorded category. Its lower TDP of 90 W versus 120 W is the only metric where it is not worse, but that is a power envelope, not a performance result. The W6600M also has a portable-device-dependent display output, whereas the W6600X has no outputs at all, which matters for mobile use but not for compute performance. The head-to-head picture is one-sided: the W6600X dominates every performance metric, and the W6600M exists to serve a different physical form factor.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share the Navi 23 chip, RDNA 2.0 architecture, 7 nm TSMC process, 11,060 million transistors, 237 mm² die size, and 46.7M / mm² transistor density, but diverge across nearly every other field.

Clock speeds: the W6600X runs at 2068 MHz base and 2479 MHz boost, while the W6600M runs at 1224 MHz base and 2034 MHz boost. Memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective for the W6600X, and 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective for the W6600M.

Compute units: the W6600X has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 RT cores. The W6600M has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores.

Memory: both have 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but bandwidth differs: 256.0 GB/s for the W6600X versus 224.0 GB/s for the W6600M.

Performance rates: the W6600X records 158.7 GPixel/s pixel rate, 317.3 GTexel/s texture rate, 10.15 TFLOPS FP32, and 20.31 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The W6600M records 130.2 GPixel/s, 227.8 GTexel/s, 7.290 TFLOPS FP32, and 14.58 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

Power and physical: the W6600X has a 120 W TDP, dual-slot width, no power connectors listed, a 300 W suggested PSU, and an Apple MPX bus interface. The W6600M has a 90 W TDP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, no suggested PSU, and a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus interface.

Display outputs: the W6600X has none, while the W6600M's are portable-device dependent.

API support is identical: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for both.

Production status and release: both are end-of-life. The W6600X released on 2021-08-02 with a launch MSRP of 699 USD. The W6600M released on 2021-06-07 with no MSRP recorded and lists FirePro Mobile as its predecessor.

The generation labels differ: the W6600X belongs to "Radeon Pro Mac (Navi II Series)", while the W6600M belongs to "Radeon Pro Mobile (W6x00M)". The benchmark records also differ, with the W6600X holding a single Metal score and the W6600M holding OpenCL and Vulkan scores.