AMD Radeon Pro W6600X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X and AMD Radeon PRO W7600 represent two distinct generations of AMD professional graphics, and the benchmark data shows a clear split in their intended use cases. The W6600X, an end-of-life Apple MPX card from the RDNA 2.0 era, posts a higher raw Geekbench Metal score, while the W7600, an active RDNA 3.0 card, delivers superior compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The data reveals that the W6600X’s single benchmark result of 107,342 places it at the 94th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7600’s average score of 87,108 sits at the 93rd percentile, indicating that the older card’s lead is narrow in the broader context of the GPU landscape.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant comparative data comes from the Geekbench Metal test, where the W6600X achieves a score of 107,342. This result is 0.6% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo’s average of 106,750, making it effectively a tie with that dual-GPU workstation card. Against the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000, the W6600X is 5.4% faster, a decisive margin for a card that draws only 120 W. However, the W6600X trails the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 by 3.1% (110,725) and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II by 2.1% (109,617), showing that it is not the absolute top performer in Apple’s ecosystem but remains highly competitive within its generation.

The W7600 takes a different path in the benchmark suite. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 81,528 and Vulkan score of 92,688 combine for an average of 87,108, which is 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro GP100’s 87,445. In practical terms, this means the W7600 trades blows with a previous-generation NVIDIA flagship compute card. More telling is the comparison to the NVIDIA RTX A4500, where the W7600 is 5% slower (91,671 vs 87,108), and against the RTX A4500 Mobile, it trails by 4.4% (91,134). The W7600 does manage to edge out the NVIDIA CMP 40HX by 1.7% (85,637), but the overall picture is one of mid-pack positioning among modern professional GPUs.

When comparing the two cards directly, the W6600X’s Metal score of 107,342 is 23.2% higher than the W7600’s average of 87,108. This is a substantial lead in Apple’s preferred graphics API, suggesting that the W6600X is the superior choice for Metal-based rendering and compute on macOS. Conversely, the W7600’s Vulkan score of 92,688 is not directly comparable to any W6600X result, as the older card lacks a published Vulkan benchmark in the data pack. The W7600’s OpenCL score of 81,528 is also the only data point for that API, meaning cross-API comparisons rely on the W6600X’s Metal dominance as the sole head-to-head metric.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark and explains their benchmark behavior. The W6600X is built on the Navi 23 chip using the RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7M per mm². In contrast, the W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip with the RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed "Hotpink Bonefish," on a more advanced 6 nm process. This newer node allows TSMC to fit 13,300 million transistors into a smaller 204 mm² die, achieving a significantly higher density of 65.2M per mm². The W7600’s 20.4% increase in transistor count comes with a 13.9% reduction in die size, a clear sign of process node efficiency gains.

Clock speeds tell a complex story. The W6600X has a higher base clock at 2068 MHz versus the W7600’s 1720 MHz, a 20.2% advantage. However, the boost clocks are nearly identical, with the W6600X at 2479 MHz and the W7600 at 2440 MHz. This suggests that the W7600 relies on its architectural improvements rather than raw clock speed to achieve performance. Memory clocks differ as well: the W6600X runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the W7600 runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). This 12.5% memory clock advantage translates directly into bandwidth, where the W7600’s 288.0 GB/s outpaces the W6600X’s 256.0 GB/s by 12.5%, though both use the same 8 GB GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus.

The compute resources are identical in count: both cards feature 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 64 raster operation pipelines, and 32 ray tracing cores. The W7600’s RDNA 3.0 architecture, however, nearly doubles the FP32 throughput, achieving 19.99 TFLOPS versus the W6600X’s 10.15 TFLOPS. The same doubling applies to FP16, with the W7600 hitting 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1) against the W6600X’s 20.31 TFLOPS (2:1). This is the largest architectural differentiator: despite identical shader counts, the newer architecture extracts nearly twice the floating-point work per clock. Pixel and texture rates are nearly identical, with the W6600X slightly ahead at 158.7 GPixel/s and 317.3 GTexel/s versus the W7600’s 156.2 GPixel/s and 312.3 GTexel/s.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear verdict for Apple ecosystem users: the W6600X is the pick for Metal-centric workflows. Its Geekbench Metal score of 107,342 is 23.2% higher than the W7600’s average score, and it sits 0.6% above the dual-GPU Radeon Pro Vega II Duo. The W6600X also carries a 94th percentile ranking versus the W7600’s 93rd, a small but notable difference in overall GPU hierarchy. For macOS users running Metal-based applications, the W6600X’s single benchmark result is the strongest evidence of performance available in the pack.

For Windows or Linux users, or those prioritizing raw compute throughput, the W7600 is the more compelling choice despite its lower average benchmark score. Its FP32 performance of 19.99 TFLOPS is 96.9% higher than the W6600X’s 10.15 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output of 39.98 TFLOPS doubles the older card’s 20.31 TFLOPS. The W7600 also offers modern connectivity with 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, whereas the W6600X has no display outputs at all, requiring a separate GPU for display tasks. The W7600’s active production status and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface make it a more versatile and forward-looking option for general workstation use.

The W6600X’s end-of-life status and Apple MPX bus interface restrict it to specific Mac Pro configurations, while the W7600’s single-slot design, 1x 6-pin power connector, and 241 mm length make it a drop-in replacement for standard PCIe slots. Both cards share a 300 W suggested PSU, but the W7600 draws 130 W versus the W6600X’s 120 W, a 10 W difference that is negligible for most systems. The W7600’s launch MSRP is 599 USD, while the W6600X launched at 699 USD, but benchmark performance should guide the choice rather than list price.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The W6600X uses the Navi 23 chip on RDNA 2.0, while the W7600 uses Navi 33 on RDNA 3.0. The process node shifts from 7 nm to 6 nm, and the transistor count rises from 11,060 million to 13,300 million. The die size shrinks from 237 mm² to 204 mm², and transistor density improves from 46.7M / mm² to 65.2M / mm². Base clocks drop from 2068 MHz to 1720 MHz, but boost clocks are close at 2479 MHz versus 2440 MHz. Memory clock increases from 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) to 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), and bandwidth rises from 256.0 GB/s to 288.0 GB/s while memory size and bus width remain 8 GB and 128 bit.

FP32 performance nearly doubles from 10.15 TFLOPS to 19.99 TFLOPS, and FP16 performance doubles from 20.31 TFLOPS to 39.98 TFLOPS. TDP increases from 120 W to 130 W, and slot width changes from dual-slot to single-slot. The W6600X has no power connector listed and uses an Apple MPX bus interface, while the W7600 uses a 1x 6-pin connector and PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs go from "No outputs" on the W6600X to 4x DisplayPort 2.1 on the W7600. The W6600X measures no listed dimensions, while the W7600 is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 115 mm (4.5 inches) high. Production status flips from end-of-life to active, and release dates are 2021-08-02 versus 2023-08-02. The W7600’s predecessor is listed as Radeon Pro Vega, while the W6600X has no predecessor or successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench Metal score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X scores 107,342 in Geekbench Metal, which is 23.2% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W7600’s average benchmark score of 87,108.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The W6600X has an average benchmark score of 107,342 from a single Geekbench Metal test. The W7600 has an average score of 87,108, derived from a Geekbench OpenCL score of 81,528 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 92,688.

Q: How do the FP32 compute capabilities compare?

A: The W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 96.9% higher than the W6600X’s 10.15 TFLOPS, despite both cards having 2048 shading units.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The W7600 offers 288.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, 12.5% higher than the W6600X’s 256.0 GB/s, due to a memory clock of 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the display output capabilities?

A: The W7600 features 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the W6600X has no display outputs, meaning the W6600X requires a separate GPU for display tasks.

Q: Which card is currently in production?

A: The W7600 is marked as "Active" in production status, while the W6600X is listed as "End-of-life." The W7600 was released on 2023-08-02, and the W6600X was released on 2021-08-02.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X wins in Apple-centric environments. Its Geekbench Metal score of 107,342 is the only benchmark result for this card, and it places 0.6% ahead of the dual-GPU Radeon Pro Vega II Duo and 5.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000. This makes it the stronger choice for macOS users running Metal-accelerated applications, particularly in Mac Pro systems with Apple MPX slots. The 94th percentile ranking versus the W7600’s 93rd reinforces this edge. The W6600X also holds a slight advantage in pixel rate (158.7 GPixel/s vs 156.2 GPixel/s) and texture rate (317.3 GTexel/s vs 312.3 GTexel/s), making it marginally better for fill-rate-bound tasks.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 wins in raw compute and general workstation flexibility. Its FP32 throughput of 19.99 TFLOPS is nearly double the W6600X’s 10.15 TFLOPS, and its FP16 output of 39.98 TFLOPS is similarly doubled. The W7600’s 288.0 GB/s memory bandwidth outpaces the W6600X by 12.5%, and its 4x DisplayPort 2.1 outputs make it a self-contained display solution. The single-slot design, PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, and active production status make it the more practical choice for modern PC workstations. In OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the W7600’s scores of 81,528 and 92,688, respectively, represent its only available benchmarks, but they position it within 5% of the NVIDIA RTX A4500 series, showing strong cross-platform capability. For users who do not rely on Metal, the W7600’s architectural advantages and broader compatibility make it the clear winner.