AMD Radeon Pro W6600M vs NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal, which wins both recorded head-to-head tests with substantial margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the TITAN X Pascal scores 66,696 points against the Radeon Pro W6600M’s 56,140 points, a lead of 18.8%. That is a commanding gap that reflects a difference in raw compute throughput rather than a minor architectural tweak. The gap narrows slightly in Geekbench Vulkan, where the TITAN X Pascal posts 77,499 points versus 67,652 points for the Radeon Pro W6600M, a 14.6% advantage. Both results point the same direction: across two different graphics APIs, the older NVIDIA part consistently outpaces the newer AMD mobile part.

The average benchmark score reinforces this. The TITAN X Pascal averages 72,098 points, while the Radeon Pro W6600M averages 61,896 points — a difference of roughly 16.5% in favor of the NVIDIA card. When placed against their respective nearest rivals, the two cards occupy different competitive strata. The TITAN X Pascal sits at the 91st percentile among all GPUs, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 at 72,379 points (a 0.4% deficit for the TITAN) and the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition at 73,370 points (a 1.7% deficit). In contrast, the Radeon Pro W6600M sits at the 89th percentile, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon 8050S at 62,108 points (a 0.3% deficit) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 at 60,347 points (a 2.6% surplus for the W6600M). Notably, the TITAN X Pascal’s nearest rivals are all high-end desktop or workstation parts, whereas the W6600M’s nearest rivals include a mobile integrated GPU and a flagship desktop card that it actually beats by 2.6%.

The Vulkan result is particularly telling for the TITAN X Pascal. Scoring 77,499 points, it exceeds its own OpenCL score by over 10,000 points, suggesting that its architecture scales well with the lower-level API. The W6600M also improves in Vulkan relative to OpenCL — from 56,140 to 67,652 points — but the absolute gap remains firmly in NVIDIA’s favor. What the data does not show is any test where the Radeon Pro W6600M pulls ahead; the wins column reads 2 for the TITAN X Pascal and 0 for the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundry nodes and design philosophies. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal is built on TSMC’s 16 nm process and packs 11,800 million transistors onto a 471 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.1 million per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro W6600M uses TSMC’s 7 nm process and integrates 11,060 million transistors onto a much smaller 237 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 46.7 million per mm² — nearly double that of the NVIDIA chip. That density advantage is a hallmark of the newer RDNA 2.0 architecture, but it does not translate into a benchmark win here.

Core configurations differ sharply. The TITAN X Pascal has 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. The Radeon Pro W6600M has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. In every count, the NVIDIA part has exactly double the shaders and TMUs, and 50% more ROPs. The AMD card does include 28 ray tracing cores, which the TITAN X Pascal lacks entirely — a generational feature gap. But the TITAN’s raw rasterization resources give it the edge in the recorded benchmarks.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The TITAN X Pascal runs at a 1417 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost, while the Radeon Pro W6600M has a lower 1224 MHz base but a much higher 2034 MHz boost. The AMD part’s boost clock is over 500 MHz higher than NVIDIA’s, reflecting RDNA 2.0’s aggressive boost behavior. Memory also differs: the TITAN X Pascal uses 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus, delivering 480.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the W6600M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s. The memory clock is listed as 1251 MHz (10 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA and 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for AMD, but the bus width difference is decisive for bandwidth.

Feature support shows a split. The TITAN X Pascal supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon Pro W6600M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support and ray tracing cores are forward-looking, but the NVIDIA card’s higher raw throughput wins the day in these specific tests. The TITAN X Pascal also draws 250 W and requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector, while the W6600M is a 90 W IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and a listed suggested PSU of none.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal wins everywhere the benchmarks measure. In both OpenCL and Vulkan, it leads by double-digit percentages, and its average score is nearly 10,000 points higher. This makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that rely on raw FP32 throughput — its 10.97 TFLOPS dwarfs the W6600M’s 7.290 TFLOPS. The TITAN’s 480.4 GB/s memory bandwidth is also more than double the W6600M’s 224.0 GB/s, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures. Its 12 GB frame buffer versus 8 GB gives it more headroom for memory-hungry applications.

However, the Radeon Pro W6600M has its own strengths that are not captured in these two benchmark tests. Its 7 nm process and 90 W TDP make it far more power-efficient per watt — the data shows a 250 W TDP for the TITAN versus 90 W for the AMD part. For mobile or compact systems, the W6600M’s IGP form factor and lack of power connectors are practical advantages. Its 28 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support mean it can handle ray-traced workloads that the TITAN X Pascal simply cannot process. The W6600M’s FP16 performance is also much stronger: 14.58 TFLOPS versus the TITAN’s 171.5 GFLOPS (1:64), a 85x difference that favors the AMD card for mixed-precision machine learning tasks.

The percentile data puts the W6600M in context: it is the 89th percentile GPU overall, and it beats the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 by 2.6% in average score — a surprising result given the RTX 4090’s reputation. The TITAN X Pascal, at the 91st percentile, remains competitive with much newer parts like the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 (0.4% slower) and the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition (1.7% slower). In short, the TITAN X Pascal wins on pure performance, while the W6600M wins on efficiency, portability, and modern feature support.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal averages 72,098 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600M averages 61,896 points — a lead of approximately 16.5% for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The TITAN X Pascal scores 77,499 points in Vulkan, beating the Radeon Pro W6600M’s 67,652 points by 14.6%.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro W6600M have any ray tracing capability?

A: Yes, the AMD card includes 28 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal has no ray tracing cores listed.

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

A: The TITAN X Pascal has 480.4 GB/s of bandwidth from 12 GB of GDDR5X on a 384-bit bus. The Radeon Pro W6600M has 224.0 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The Radeon Pro W6600M has a 90 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the TITAN X Pascal has a 250 W TDP and needs a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connector.

Q: Where does the Radeon Pro W6600M rank among all GPUs?

A: It sits at the 89th percentile, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon 8050S (0.3% faster) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 (2.6% slower).

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal | AMD Radeon Pro W6600M |

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

| Chip | GP102 | Navi 23 |

| Architecture | Pascal | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 11,800 million | 11,060 million |

| Die Size | 471 mm² | 237 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.1M / mm² | 46.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1417 MHz | 1224 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1531 MHz | 2034 MHz |

| Memory Size | 12 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5X | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 480.4 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 3584 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 224 | 112 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 28 |

| Pixel Rate | 147.0 GPixel/s | 130.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 342.9 GTexel/s | 227.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 10.97 TFLOPS | 7.290 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 171.5 GFLOPS (1:64) | 14.58 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 250 W | 90 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Release Date | 2016-08-01 | 2021-06-07 |

| Launch MSRP | 1,199 USD | None |