AMD Radeon Pro W6600M vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a clear picture of performance disparity between these two workstation GPUs. In the two shared benchmark tests, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 dominates the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M with decisive margins.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 scores 141,837 points against the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M's 56,140 points. This represents a 152.6% advantage for the NVIDIA card. That is not a modest lead; it is a more than two-and-a-half-fold performance difference in raw compute throughput. The OpenCL test typically stresses general-purpose compute workloads, and the data suggests the RTX A4500's larger silicon and higher transistor count translate directly into superior parallel processing capability.

The Vulkan test narrows the gap somewhat, but the result remains one-sided. The RTX A4500 achieves 129,980 points, while the Radeon Pro W6600M manages 67,652 points. The delta here is 92.1%, meaning NVIDIA's card nearly doubles the AMD offering in this graphics API workload. Vulkan is often more efficient at extracting performance from available hardware, so the fact that the RTX A4500 still nearly doubles the AMD card indicates a fundamental throughput advantage rather than an API-specific quirk.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages reinforces this narrative. The RTX A4500 posts an average benchmark score of 91,671 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon Pro W6600M averages 61,896, good enough for the 89th percentile. The gap between their averages is 29,775 points, which is substantial by any reasonable interpretation.

The RTX A4500's nearest rivals provide useful context for understanding where it sits. Its closest competitor in the database is the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile, which trails by a mere 0.6%. The AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 actually scores 0.9% higher, while the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 and AMD Radeon PRO W7600 sit 4.8% and 5.2% behind respectively. This clustering suggests the RTX A4500 is right at the upper boundary of its performance tier, competitive with other high-end workstation offerings.

The Radeon Pro W6600M's rival cluster tells a different story. The AMD Radeon 8050S is essentially tied with it, scoring 0.3% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 and Intel Arc Pro A60 both trail by 2.6%, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is 2.9% behind. This places the W6600M in a mid-range performance neighborhood, nowhere near the RTX A4500's bracket.

Notably, the RTX A4500 also has a third benchmark result in the database, a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,196, which the Radeon Pro W6600M has no corresponding result for. This absence itself hints at differing test coverage, but the two tests they do share are enough to establish the hierarchy.

The Verdict

The data does not leave much room for ambiguity. For anyone choosing between these two based strictly on recorded benchmark performance, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 is the superior card in every measurable category. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score, and sits in a higher overall percentile ranking.

The RTX A4500 should be the pick for workloads that demand maximum compute throughput, particularly tasks that lean on OpenCL or Vulkan acceleration. Its 152.6% lead in OpenCL and 92.1% lead in Vulkan mean that any application using these APIs will complete work dramatically faster on the NVIDIA card. Rendering, simulation, and data processing tasks that scale with raw shader throughput will benefit disproportionately from the RTX A4500's 23.65 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the Radeon Pro W6600M's 7.290 TFLOPS.

The Radeon Pro W6600M is not without its own merits, but they are not found in raw benchmark scores. Its 90 W TDP is less than half the RTX A4500's 200 W, and its IGP form factor means it is designed to be integrated into portable devices rather than installed as a discrete card. For fixed workstations with space constraints or thermal constraints, the W6600M's lower power envelope might be preferable. However, the database records no benchmark where this translates into a performance win.

Users who prioritize portability and energy efficiency over peak compute capability should consider the Radeon Pro W6600M. Anyone who needs maximum performance per the recorded benchmarks should choose the RTX A4500 without hesitation.

One additional consideration is that the RTX A4500's transistor density is actually lower than the W6600M, at 45.1M transistors per mm² versus 46.7M. Yet the RTX A4500 packs 28,300 million transistors across a 628 mm² die, dwarfing the W6600M's 11,060 million transistors on 237 mm². The sheer scale of NVIDIA's silicon is the simplest explanation for its benchmark dominance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 has an average benchmark score of 91,671, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M averages 61,896. The RTX A4500 leads by 29,775 points.

Q: How does the RTX A4500 compare to its closest rivals in the database?

A: The RTX A4500 is 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60, but it is 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile, 4.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, and 5.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7600.

Q: What is the closest competitor to the Radeon Pro W6600M?

A: The AMD Radeon 8050S is nearly identical, scoring 0.3% lower than the W6600M. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 and Intel Arc Pro A60 both score 2.6% lower, and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is 2.9% lower.

Q: In which benchmark does the RTX A4500 have its largest lead?

A: The RTX A4500 leads by 152.6% in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 141,837 against the W6600M's 56,140.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro W6600M win any recorded benchmarks?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 wins both. The wins tally is 2 for the A4500 and 0 for the W6600M.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 is built on GA102 silicon using an 8 nm process at Samsung, with 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M uses the Navi 23 chip, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process, with 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die.

Memory configurations are substantially different. The RTX A4500 carries 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320 bit bus, achieving 640.0 GB/s bandwidth with 16 Gbps effective speed. The W6600M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s bandwidth at 14 Gbps effective.

Clock speeds favor AMD in base clock terms, though the W6600M's higher boost clock of 2034 MHz barely edges out the RTX A4500's 1650 MHz. Memory clock favors NVIDIA at 2000 MHz versus 1750 MHz.

Compute resources heavily favor NVIDIA. The RTX A4500 has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 56 RT cores, and 224 tensor cores. The W6600M has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores, with no tensor cores listed.

Theoretical throughput metrics follow suit. NVIDIA leads in FP32 at 23.65 TFLOPS, pixel rate at 158.0 GPixel/s, and texture rate at 369.6 GTexel/s. AMD posts 7.290 TFLOPS FP32, 130.2 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 227.8 GTexel/s texture rate. In FP16, the NVIDIA card achieves 23.65 TFLOPS at 1:1 ratio, while AMD reaches 14.58 TFLOPS at 2:1.

Power and physical specifications diverge sharply. The RTX A4500 is a dual-slot card requiring a single 8-pin power connector and a 550 W suggested PSU, drawing 200 W. The W6600M is an IGP format with no power connector and a 90 W TDP. The RTX A4500 measures 267 mm in length, while the W6600M has no recorded dimensions.

Display outputs also differ: the RTX A4500 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the W6600M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent. Both cards support PCIe 4.0 x16, DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is fundamental. NVIDIA's RTX A4500 employs the Ampere architecture, a design that integrates dedicated RT cores and tensor cores into a massive GA102 chip. The 628 mm² die with 28,300 million transistors represents NVIDIA's high-end workstation silicon, with 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores providing hardware acceleration for ray tracing and AI workloads.

AMD's Radeon Pro W6600M uses RDNA 2.0 on the Navi 23 chip, a significantly smaller 237 mm² die with 11,060 million transistors. It integrates 28 RT cores for ray tracing acceleration, but has no tensor core equivalent. This architectural difference is significant because tensor cores enable features like DLSS and certain AI-accelerated rendering workflows that the AMD card simply cannot accelerate in hardware.

The process node difference matters here as well. Samsung's 8 nm node used for NVIDIA is less advanced than TSMC's 7 nm node used for AMD, which explains why the RTX A4500 achieves a lower transistor density of 45.1M per mm² versus AMD's 46.7M, but NVIDIA compensates by building a much larger die overall.

FP16 processing differs in approach. The RTX A4500 processes FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it does not gain additional throughput for half-precision work. The W6600M runs FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, effectively doubling its FP16 throughput to 14.58 TFLOPS versus its 7.290 TFLOPS FP32 figure.

Both architectures support DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX A4500's Ampere generation is classified as Workstation Ampere from the Ax000 series, while the W6600M belongs to the Radeon Pro Mobile W6x00M generation. Both are end-of-life products, with the RTX A4500 having released in November 2021 and the W6600M in June 2021.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A4500 wins in every benchmarked category, but the practical implications extend beyond raw scores. Its 20 GB memory capacity, 640.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 23.65 TFLOPS FP32 throughput make it suited for large dataset workloads such as complex 3D scene rendering, scientific simulations, and machine learning inference with its 224 tensor cores. The 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor professional setups.

The Radeon Pro W6600M's wins are in areas the benchmarks do not measure. Its 90 W TDP makes it suitable for portable workstations where power budgets are tight. The IGP form factor means no additional slot space is required, making it viable for slim mobile chassis. Its 8 GB memory and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are modest but adequate for mobile workstation display tasks.

For GPU compute, the RTX A4500 is the clear choice. For mobile deployment with minimal power draw, the W6600M holds an advantage that the database does not quantify but the specifications make apparent. The RTX A4500's 200 W TDP and dual-slot requirement preclude it from many portable applications entirely.

The data supports a simple conclusion: the RTX A4500 is the higher-performing card by every recorded measurement, while the W6600M's niche lies in its low power profile and mobile-friendly IGP design. Workloads that can leverage NVIDIA's tensor cores or need its 20 GB frame buffer will find no equivalent on the AMD side. Workloads that must run on battery power or in constrained thermal envelopes will favor the W6600M despite its benchmark deficit.