AMD Radeon Pro W6600X vs NVIDIA PG506-232 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one benchmark score for each of these two workstation cards, but they are recorded under different test suites. The NVIDIA PG506-232 was measured with Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 225,124 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X was measured with Geekbench Metal, scoring 107,342 points. A direct apples-to-apples comparison is impossible because the test APIs differ, but the percentile rankings and nearest rival data provide a useful frame.

The NVIDIA PG506-232 sits in the 99th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals show a tight cluster: it is 2.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D (219,827 points), 8.7% ahead of the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB (207,124 points), and 14.9% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 6000D (195,964 points). The only nearby card that beats it is the NVIDIA L20, which scores 251,147 points, a 10.4% advantage. This suggests the PG506-232 is a strong OpenCL performer, roughly in the upper echelon of compute cards, but not the absolute leader in its immediate neighborhood.

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X, by contrast, sits in the 94th percentile. Its nearest rivals under Metal are all within a narrow band. It is 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (106,750 points), 5.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (101,872 points), but 2.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (109,617 points) and 3.1% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 (110,725 points). The spread here is small, meaning the W6600X is competitive with its immediate peers but does not dominate them.

The raw score gap between the two cards is large, roughly 110%, but that gap is inflated by the different benchmark APIs. The PG506-232 is clearly a higher-end part in the database's OpenCL rankings, while the W6600X is a mid-tier Metal performer. The percentile difference, 99 versus 94, reinforces that the NVIDIA card belongs to a more elite performance tier overall.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA PG506-232 wins decisively in raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth. Its FP32 performance is 10.32 TFLOPS, and its FP16 performance is identical at 10.32 TFLOPS, indicating a 1:1 ratio, which is typical for compute-focused accelerators that prioritize consistent throughput across precisions. The card pairs 24 GB of HBM2 memory on a 3072-bit bus, producing 933.1 GB/s of bandwidth. That bandwidth figure is nearly four times the AMD card's 256.0 GB/s, and the memory capacity is three times larger. For workloads that are memory-bound, such as large matrix operations or data-intensive simulations, the PG506-232 has a clear edge.

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X wins in clock speed and pixel throughput. Its base clock is 2068 MHz and boost clock is 2479 MHz, versus 930 MHz base and 1440 MHz boost on the NVIDIA card. The AMD card also has a higher pixel rate at 158.7 GPixel/s versus 138.2 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 317.3 GTexel/s is close to the NVIDIA card's 322.6 GTexel/s despite having fewer texture units (128 versus 224). The W6600X also has dedicated ray tracing cores (32), which the PG506-232 lacks entirely, and it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the NVIDIA card lists no API support in the database. For graphics-oriented tasks or any workload that leverages ray tracing, the W6600X is the only one of the two with the hardware to do so.

The FP16 picture is also split. The W6600X delivers 20.31 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, which is double its FP32 rate (2:1 ratio), while the PG506-232 stays at 10.32 TFLOPS for both. If a workload uses FP16 mixed precision, the AMD card is significantly faster on paper. However, the NVIDIA card has 224 tensor cores, which the AMD card lacks, so for tensor-based workloads such as AI inference or training, the PG506-232 offers specialized hardware that the W6600X cannot match.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and are aimed at different segments. The NVIDIA PG506-232 uses the GA100 chip on the Ampere architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The die is 826 mm², which is enormous, and it houses 54,200 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 65.6 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X uses the Navi 23 chip on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, also on a 7 nm TSMC process, but the die is only 237 mm² with 11,060 million transistors, for a density of 46.7 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is roughly 3.5 times larger in die area and holds nearly five times as many transistors. This reflects a design philosophy of maximizing compute resources, while the AMD chip is more modest and power-efficient per area.

Memory architecture differs sharply. The PG506-232 uses HBM2 with a 3072-bit bus and 933.1 GB/s bandwidth, which is a high-bandwidth, high-cost solution. The W6600X uses GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, which is far more conventional and cheaper to implement. The NVIDIA card has 24 GB of memory versus 8 GB on the AMD card, and the bus width difference is 3072-bit versus 128-bit, a 24-fold gap in bus width that explains the bandwidth disparity.

Compute unit counts also diverge. The PG506-232 has 3,584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, 96 ROPs, and 224 tensor cores. The W6600X has 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA card has more of almost everything except ray tracing cores. The AMD card has a higher boost clock (2479 MHz versus 1440 MHz), which helps it close the FP32 gap: 10.15 TFLOPS versus 10.32 TFLOPS, a difference of only 1.7%. The NVIDIA card's advantage in FP32 is marginal, but its memory bandwidth and tensor core availability are substantial.

Power and interface also differ. The PG506-232 has a TDP of 165 W and requires an 8-pin EPS power connector with a suggested 450 W PSU. The W6600X has a TDP of 120 W, no listed power connector, and a suggested 300 W PSU. The NVIDIA card uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the AMD card uses Apple MPX, which is a proprietary Apple bus interface. Neither card has display outputs, so both are intended for compute or rendering tasks where the output is handled elsewhere. The NVIDIA card is 267 mm long and 112 mm tall, while the AMD card's dimensions are not recorded.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear division of labor. The NVIDIA PG506-232 is the superior choice for memory-intensive compute, tensor-based workloads, and any task that benefits from 24 GB of HBM2 memory at 933.1 GB/s. Its 99th percentile OpenCL score and its position ahead of the A100 and RTX 6000D in the nearest rival list indicate that it is a high-end compute accelerator. The 224 tensor cores are a unique asset that the AMD card cannot offset with any feature. If the workload is AI inference, scientific simulation, or large dataset processing, the PG506-232 is the stronger card according to the recorded data.

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X is the better option for graphics-centric or ray tracing workloads. It has 32 dedicated ray tracing cores, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, and delivers higher pixel and texture rates relative to its smaller footprint. Its FP16 performance at 20.31 TFLOPS is nearly double that of the NVIDIA card, which could matter for mixed-precision graphics or compute tasks. Its lower TDP of 120 W and smaller die suggest it is also more power-efficient per watt, although the database does not provide efficiency ratios. The 94th percentile Metal score shows it is a capable card, but it sits in a more crowded and less elite tier.

There is no clear overall winner because the two cards are not substitutes. The PG506-232 is a server-grade compute card with no display outputs and a 165 W TDP, while the W6600X is a Mac-specific Radeon Pro card with no display outputs but a lower 120 W TDP and Apple MPX interface. The choice depends entirely on the platform and the workload. For OpenCL-heavy compute on a PCIe system, the PG506-232 is the data-backed pick. For Metal-based tasks on Apple hardware, or for ray tracing, the W6600X is the only card of the two that supports those features.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA PG506-232 has 933.1 GB/s of bandwidth from HBM2 memory on a 3072-bit bus. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X has 256.0 GB/s from GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does either card support ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X has ray tracing cores, with 32 of them. The NVIDIA PG506-232 lists no ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the FP16 performance difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X delivers 20.31 TFLOPS of FP16 performance, which is double its FP32 rate. The NVIDIA PG506-232 delivers 10.32 TFLOPS of FP16, identical to its FP32 rate.

Q: Which card has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA PG506-232 scored 225,124 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it in the 99th percentile. The AMD card was tested with Geekbench Metal and scored 107,342, placing it in the 94th percentile.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The NVIDIA PG506-232 has 54,200 million transistors on an 826 mm² die. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X has 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die.

Q: Which card has more memory capacity?

A: The NVIDIA PG506-232 has 24 GB of HBM2 memory. The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA PG506-232 | AMD Radeon Pro W6600X |

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

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 2.0 |

| Chip | GA100 | Navi 23 |

| Generation | Server Ampere (Axx) | Radeon Pro Mac (Navi II Series) |

| Transistors | 54,200 million | 11,060 million |

| Die Size | 826 mm² | 237 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.6M / mm² | 46.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 930 MHz | 2068 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1440 MHz | 2479 MHz |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | HBM2 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 3072 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 933.1 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1215 MHz, 2.4 Gbps effective | 2000 MHz, 16 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 3584 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 224 | 128 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | None | 32 |

| Tensor Cores | 224 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 138.2 GPixel/s | 158.7 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 322.6 GTexel/s | 317.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 10.32 TFLOPS | 10.15 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.32 TFLOPS (1:1) | 20.31 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 165 W | 120 W |

| Power Connectors | 8-pin EPS | None listed |

| Suggested PSU | 450 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | Apple MPX |

| DirectX Support | None listed | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| OpenGL Support | None listed | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | None listed | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 267 mm x 112 mm | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2021-04-11 | 2021-08-02 |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | 699 USD |

| Benchmark Score | 225,124 (OpenCL) | 107,342 (Metal) |

| Percentile | 99 | 94 |