AMD Radeon Pro W6600M vs AMD Radeon RX 5600M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded benchmark comparisons show a clear split between compute and graphics workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon RX 5600M posts a score of 59,589, which is 5.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M's 56,140. This is a modest but meaningful margin in raw compute throughput, suggesting the RX 5600M holds an advantage in general-purpose GPU compute tasks as measured by OpenCL.

The Geekbench Vulkan result flips the picture dramatically. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M scores 67,652, which is 38.5% higher than the RX 5600M's 48,843. That is a substantial gap, and it indicates that in Vulkan-based graphics workloads, the Pro W6600M is in a different performance class. The 38.5% delta is the largest single-metric difference between the two cards in the database's head-to-head records, and it dominates the overall comparison when weighting both tests.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the Pro W6600M records an average of 61,896 across its two benchmark entries, while the RX 5600M averages 46,601 across its four recorded tests. The Pro W6600M sits in the 89th percentile of all GPUs in the database, whereas the RX 5600M lands in the 85th percentile. The average score gap is roughly 15,000 points, which aligns with the Pro W6600M's stronger Vulkan showing outweighing the RX 5600M's OpenCL edge.

Within their respective nearest rival groups, the Pro W6600M's average score is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon 8050S (delta of -0.3%), and it sits 2.6% above both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 and Intel Arc Pro A60 in the database's recorded averages. The RX 5600M, by contrast, matches the Intel Arc A530M almost exactly (0.0% delta) and trails the AMD Radeon RX 6550M by 0.2%. These rival comparisons put the Pro W6600M in a higher overall performance tier.

The wins tally is one apiece: the RX 5600M takes the OpenCL benchmark, and the Pro W6600M takes Vulkan. But the magnitude of the Vulkan victory is so large that it carries more weight in any balanced assessment of the two cards. A 5.8% OpenCL advantage is notable, yet a 38.5% Vulkan advantage is decisive for graphics-centric workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different RDNA generations, and that is the core architectural story. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M uses the Navi 23 chip built on RDNA 2.0, while the AMD Radeon RX 5600M uses the Navi 10 chip built on the original RDNA 1.0. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process, so the manufacturing node is identical, but the underlying microarchitecture differs.

The Pro W6600M includes 28 ray tracing cores, a feature that the RX 5600M entirely lacks. With no RT cores listed, the RX 5600M cannot execute hardware-accelerated ray tracing, which is a defining feature difference between the two RDNA generations. The Pro W6600M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5600M only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so API coverage is otherwise similar.

Transistor counts and die sizes tell a nuanced story. The Pro W6600M packs 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7 million per mm². The RX 5600M has 10,300 million transistors on a 251 mm² die, for a density of 41.0 million per mm². The Pro W6600M is therefore the denser chip, fitting more transistors into a smaller area, which reflects the architectural efficiency gains of RDNA 2.0.

Compute unit configurations differ as well. The Pro W6600M has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The RX 5600M counters with 2,304 shading units and 144 TMUs, while also having 64 ROPs. The RX 5600M has more raw shader and texture hardware, which helps explain its OpenCL advantage. The Pro W6600M compensates with higher clocks and the RT core hardware.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The Pro W6600M runs at a base clock of 1224 MHz and boosts to 2034 MHz. The RX 5600M has a base clock of 1035 MHz, a boost clock of 1265 MHz, and a game clock of 1190 MHz. The Pro W6600M's boost clock is roughly 769 MHz higher. That clock advantage, combined with the RDNA 2.0 architecture, drives the Pro W6600M's higher pixel rate of 130.2 GPixel/s versus 80.96 GPixel/s for the RX 5600M, and a texture rate of 227.8 GTexel/s versus 182.2 GTexel/s.

Memory subsystems differ in both capacity and bus width. The Pro W6600M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit interface, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The RX 5600M has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a wider 192-bit interface, delivering 288.0 GB/s at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). The RX 5600M has more memory bandwidth despite less capacity, while the Pro W6600M offers more total memory.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5600M wins in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL. Its 5.8% lead over the Pro W6600M in that benchmark aligns with its larger shader count of 2,304 versus 1,792 and its higher memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s. For workloads that are not heavily dependent on the latest graphics features, such as certain compute tasks or legacy API workloads, the RX 5600M holds a measurable edge.

The Pro W6600M wins decisively in Vulkan graphics performance, with a 38.5% advantage. This is the headline result. Vulkan is a modern low-overhead API, and the Pro W6600M's RDNA 2.0 architecture with ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support gives it a significant edge in graphics-heavy applications. The Pro W6600M also has higher pixel and texture rates, which benefit rasterization-heavy scenes.

For gaming or rendering workloads that leverage Vulkan or DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the Pro W6600M is clearly the stronger card. The 28 ray tracing cores are a hardware capability the RX 5600M simply does not have, making the Pro W6600M the only option of the two for hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The higher boost clock of 2034 MHz also helps in bursty graphics workloads.

For compute-oriented tasks that stress shader throughput and memory bandwidth, the RX 5600M is the better choice. Its 2,304 shading units and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth give it a real advantage in OpenCL-style workloads. The trade-off is that the RX 5600M draws 150 W versus 90 W for the Pro W6600M, so it achieves that compute performance at a higher power cost.

The Pro W6600M also wins on memory capacity with 8 GB versus 6 GB, which matters for larger datasets and higher-resolution textures. However, the RX 5600M's wider memory bus means it moves data faster when the working set fits within its 6 GB frame buffer.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 5600M | AMD Radeon Pro W6600M |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Chip | Navi 10 | Navi 10, Navi 23 |

| Generation | Navi Mobile (RX 5000M, Radeon RX 5000 series) | Radeon Pro Mobile (W6x00M) |

| Transistors | 10,300 million | 11,060 million |

| Die Size | 251 mm² | 237 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 41.0M / mm² | 46.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1035 MHz | 1224 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1265 MHz | 2034 MHz |

| Game Clock | 1190 MHz | 1190 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective, 6 GB GDDR6, 192 bit) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective, 8 GB GDDR6, 128 bit) |

| Memory Size | 6 GB GDDR6 | 8 GB GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2304 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 144 | 112 TMUs |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 64 ROPs, 28 | 28 |

| Pixel Rate | 80.96 GPixel/s | 130.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 182.2 GTexel/s | 227.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.829 TFLOPS | 7.290 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 11.66 TFLOPS (2:1) | 11.66 TFLOPS (2:1, 14.58 TFLOPS) |

| TDP/Power | 150 W | 90 W |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Release Date | 2020-07-07 | 2021-06-07 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |

The table above notes where the two GPUs differ. A correction to the table is in order. The RX 5600M has 2,304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The Pro W6600M has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The table above has been corrected to reflect the RX 5600M's actual TMU count of 144 and the Pro W6600M's actual TMU count of 112.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M has an average benchmark score of 61,896, while the AMD Radeon RX 5600M averages 46,601. The Pro W6600M also ranks in the 89th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 85th percentile for the RX 5600M.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The Pro W6600M scores 67,652 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 38.5% higher than the RX 5600M's score of 48,843. This is the largest recorded performance difference between the two cards.

Q: Does the RX 5600M have any benchmark where it beats the Pro W6600M?

A: Yes. The RX 5600M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 59,589, which is 5.8% ahead of the Pro W6600M's 56,140.

Q: Which GPU has ray tracing hardware?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M has 28 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M has no ray tracing cores listed in its specifications.

Q: What are the memory capacity and bandwidth differences?

A: The Pro W6600M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 5600M has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The Pro W6600M boosts to 2034 MHz, while the RX 5600M boosts to 1265 MHz. The Pro W6600M's base clock of 1224 MHz is also higher than the RX 5600M's base of 1035 MHz.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M is the stronger overall GPU, but not universally. Its 38.5% Vulkan advantage over the RX 5600M is the single most important benchmark result in this comparison, and it is supported by a higher average benchmark score of 61,896 versus 46,601, a better percentile ranking of 89th versus 85th, and superior specification highlights like ray tracing cores, DirectX 12 Ultimate support, and a 2034 MHz boost clock.

The RX 5600M is not without merit. Its 5.8% OpenCL lead and higher memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s make it a legitimate choice for compute-focused workloads. Its larger shader count of 2,304 gives it raw throughput that the Pro W6600M cannot match in OpenCL scenarios. However, those advantages come at a 150 W TDP, compared to 90 W for the Pro W6600M, and they do not translate into graphics performance wins.

Users who prioritize modern graphics features, ray tracing, or Vulkan-based applications should choose the Pro W6600M. Users who run compute workloads that favor OpenCL and need maximum memory bandwidth should consider the RX 5600M. The Pro W6600M is the better all-rounder based on the recorded data, with a decisive win in the most demanding modern graphics API and a higher overall performance tier.