AMD Radeon Pro W6600M vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance advantage for the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 across both benchmark tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W7600 scores 81,528, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M manages 56,140. This represents a 45.2% lead for the desktop card. The margin narrows slightly in Vulkan, where the W7600 posts 92,688 against the W6600M’s 67,652, a 37% advantage. The W7600 wins both head-to-head tests, with a total wins tally of 2 to 0.

The OpenCL delta is especially notable because it is the larger of the two gaps. The W7600’s average benchmark score of 87,108 places it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the W6600M’s average of 61,896 sits in the 89th percentile. This percentile difference, though modest in rank, masks a substantial raw score gap of 25,212 points or roughly 40.7% higher average performance. The Vulkan test, while still a decisive victory for the W7600, shows a slightly smaller relative improvement, suggesting the architecture scales somewhat differently across APIs.

In the context of their nearest rivals, both cards hold their own. The W7600’s average score of 87,108 is only 0.4% below the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (87,445) and 1.7% above the NVIDIA CMP 40HX (85,637). It trails the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (91,134) by 4.4% and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91,671) by 5%. This positions the W7600 in the upper mid-range, close to but not exceeding those higher-tier NVIDIA workstation parts.

The W6600M’s average of 61,896 is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon 8050S, which scores 62,108, a delta of -0.3%. It is 2.6% ahead of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (60,347) and the Intel Arc Pro A60 (60,326), and 2.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 (60,140). The data shows the W6600M, despite being an older mobile part, sits comfortably above several desktop and workstation contenders in this specific benchmark suite.

Architecture Differences

The core architectures are fundamentally different generations. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is built on RDNA 3.0 with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed “Hotpink Bonefish.” The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M uses the older RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip. This generational shift brings several key changes.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The W7600 uses TSMC’s 6 nm process, while the W6600M uses TSMC’s 7 nm process. This allows the W7600 to pack 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². By contrast, the W6600M has 11,060 million transistors on a larger 237 mm² die, yielding only 46.7 million per mm². The W7600 is therefore both denser and more efficient in terms of die space.

Compute resources are higher on the W7600. It features 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The W6600M has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The ray tracing hardware also differs: the W7600 has 32 RT cores, while the W6600M has 28. The W7600’s higher compute throughput is reflected in its FP32 output of 19.99 TFLOPS versus 7.29 TFLOPS for the W6600M, and FP16 output of 39.98 TFLOPS versus 14.58 TFLOPS (both at 2:1 ratio).

Clock speeds are notably higher on the W7600. The base clock is 1720 MHz and boost is 2440 MHz. The W6600M runs at 1224 MHz base and 2034 MHz boost. Memory clocks also favor the W7600: 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). Both cards use 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus, but the W7600 achieves 288.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 224.0 GB/s for the W6600M. The pixel rate is 156.2 GPixel/s on the W7600 and 130.2 GPixel/s on the W6600M. Texture rate is 312.3 GTexel/s versus 227.8 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design are clearly differentiated. The W7600 is a single-slot card with a 130 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, with a suggested power supply of 300 W. It measures 241 mm in length and 115 mm in height. The W6600M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 90 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for portable devices. Its display outputs are described as “Portable Device Dependent,” while the W7600 provides 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The W7600 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, while the W6600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

The W7600 is part of the “Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series)” generation and was released on 2023-08-02. The W6600M belongs to the “Radeon Pro Mobile (W6x00M)” generation and was released on 2021-06-07, its production status being End-of-life. The W7600 is currently listed as Active. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

Based on benchmark results, the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 wins outright in every measured performance test. It is the clear choice for workloads that rely on raw compute throughput. In OpenCL, it is 45.2% faster, which is a substantial margin for tasks like general-purpose GPU computing, data processing, and certain scientific simulations. In Vulkan, the 37% lead suggests it also excels in graphics-heavy applications and game development workflows that leverage the Vulkan API.

The W7600 is also the more future-proof option. Its active production status, newer architecture, higher memory bandwidth (288.0 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s), and superior pixel and texture rates give it a strong edge in high-resolution rendering and texture-heavy scenes. Its FP32 throughput of 19.99 TFLOPS is nearly three times that of the W6600M, making it a better fit for machine learning inference, complex shaders, and compute-intensive CAD tasks.

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, while losing the head-to-head, is not without its own niche. Its IGP form factor and 90 W TDP make it suitable for mobile workstations where power and space are constrained. The data shows it still holds a respectable 89th percentile rank, and it outperforms the AMD Radeon 8050S by 0.3%, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 by 2.6%, the Intel Arc Pro A60 by 2.6%, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 by 2.9% in average benchmark score. Therefore, the W6600M is the better choice for a laptop or compact system where the W7600 cannot physically fit, and where the performance gap is acceptable.

However, the benchmark data does not record any workload where the W6600M surpasses the W7600. The only advantage is its power efficiency profile and mobile integration, which are qualitative benefits rather than raw performance wins. The W7600 is the clear winner in every measured metric.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has an average benchmark score of 87,108, compared to 61,896 for the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M. The W7600 is approximately 41% higher.

Q: How does the W7600 compare to the RTX A4500 Mobile in performance?

A: The W7600 is 4.4% behind the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile, which has an average score of 91,134. This places the W7600 slightly below that rival but very close.

Q: What is the performance delta between the two cards in Vulkan?

A: In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 scores 92,688, and the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M scores 67,652. The W7600 is 37% faster.

Q: Does the W6600M have any advantages?

A: The W6600M is an IGP with a 90 W TDP and no power connectors, making it better suited for portable devices. It also has a PCIe 4.0 x16 bus, which is wider than the W7600’s x8 interface.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The W7600 provides 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the W6600M provides 224.0 GB/s. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: How does the W7600 rank against all other GPUs?

A: The W7600 is in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the W6600M is in the 89th percentile.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is the superior graphics processor. It wins both head-to-head tests with a minimum delta of 37%, and its average score is over 40% higher. Users who need maximum compute performance for OpenCL or Vulkan applications should choose the W7600. Its newer 6 nm RDNA 3.0 architecture, higher clock speeds, greater shader count, and faster memory make it the best choice for desktop workstation workloads.

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M, however, is not without merit. Its end-of-life mobile design with a 90 W TDP and no power connectors makes it suitable for specific portable or low-power systems where the W7600’s 130 W TDP and 6-pin connector are not viable. In such constrained environments, the W6600M still delivers a strong 89th percentile performance, and its benchmark scores are comparable to or better than several desktop and mobile rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 and Intel Arc Pro A60.

The choice depends purely on the intended use environment. For a workstation with no power constraints, the W7600 is the superior accelerator. For a mobile workstation or embedded system with strict power and thermal limits, the W6600M remains a viable option, even if its raw performance is significantly lower. The data does not record any scenario where the W6600M wins a benchmark, so the W7600 is the default recommendation for performance-critical tasks.