AMD Radeon Pro W6600X vs NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation Comparison

NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation and AMD Radeon Pro W6600X target different corners of the workstation market, and the data reflects that split. The RTX 4000 SFF is a compact, power-efficient 20 GB card built on a 5 nm process, while the W6600X is an Apple MPX card with 8 GB of memory on a 7 nm process. Their benchmark scores place them within one percentile of each other in the overall GPU hierarchy, yet the underlying architectures and intended use cases create clear separation.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation dominates in raw compute throughput based on the available benchmark data. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 124,812 and Vulkan score of 109,364 give it an average benchmark score of 117,088, placing it in the 95th percentile of all GPUs. The W6600X, tested only on Geekbench Metal, scores 107,342, which lands in the 94th percentile. The NVIDIA card leads by roughly 9% in average score, a margin that reflects its higher FP32 throughput of 19.17 TFLOPS versus 10.15 TFLOPS on the AMD card.

The W6600X wins in specific architectural efficiencies. Its boost clock of 2479 MHz is substantially higher than the RTX 4000 SFF’s 1560 MHz boost, and its pixel rate of 158.7 GPixel/s exceeds the NVIDIA card’s 99.84 GPixel/s. The AMD card also delivers higher texture rate at 317.3 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s. These figures suggest the W6600X can handle fill-rate-bound tasks more effectively, even if its overall compute ceiling is lower. The RTX 4000 SFF counters with 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 RT cores, while the W6600X offers 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 RT cores; the NVIDIA card’s larger shader array drives its FP32 advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different design philosophies. The RTX 4000 SFF uses the AD104 chip on TSMC’s 5 nm node, packing 35,800 million transistors into a 294 mm² die for a transistor density of 121.8 million per mm². The W6600X uses Navi 23 on TSMC’s 7 nm node, with 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, yielding a density of 46.7 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip’s density is nearly 2.6 times higher, enabling more compute resources in a smaller physical package.

Memory configuration diverges sharply. The RTX 4000 SFF carries 20 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 280.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6600X has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card’s 12 GB capacity advantage is its most obvious differentiator, and its 24 GB/s bandwidth lead is modest. Both cards use GDDR6, but the RTX 4000 SFF runs at 14 Gbps effective versus 16 Gbps effective on the W6600X, a trade-off that favors the AMD card’s per-pin speed while the NVIDIA card compensates with a wider bus.

Feature sets reflect their target platforms. The RTX 4000 SFF includes 192 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the W6600X, making the NVIDIA card better suited for AI-adjacent workloads. The W6600X’s FP16 performance of 20.31 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio exceeds its FP32 rate, whereas the RTX 4000 SFF achieves 19.17 TFLOPS in both FP16 and FP32 at a 1:1 ratio. Power and interface also differ: the RTX 4000 SFF draws 70 W with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the W6600X draws 120 W with a suggested 300 W PSU and connects via Apple MPX rather than PCIe.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark data is unavailable, so comparison relies on each card’s individual Geekbench results. In OpenCL, the RTX 4000 SFF scores 124,812, while the W6600X has no OpenCL result; in Metal, the W6600X scores 107,342, while the RTX 4000 SFF has no Metal result. The only overlapping metric is the average benchmark score, where the RTX 4000 SFF’s 117,088 leads the W6600X’s 107,342 by 9.1%.

Context from nearest rivals sharpens the picture. The RTX 4000 SFF sits 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GB10 (117,393), 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 (118,976), and 2.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114,395). The W6600X, by contrast, is 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo (106,750), 2.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (109,617), and 3.1% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 (110,725). These deltas show the RTX 4000 SFF competing near the top of its class, while the W6600X holds its own against older high-end AMD parts.

The biggest win for the RTX 4000 SFF comes in raw compute. Its 19.17 TFLOPS FP32 is 89% higher than the W6600X’s 10.15 TFLOPS, a gap that explains its higher average benchmark score. The W6600X’s best showing is in pixel throughput, where its 158.7 GPixel/s is 59% higher than the RTX 4000 SFF’s 99.84 GPixel/s. Texture rate is closer, with the W6600X ahead by 5.9% at 317.3 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s. In memory bandwidth, the RTX 4000 SFF leads by 9.4% at 280.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory, and does it matter?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF has 20 GB of GDDR6, while the W6600X has 8 GB of GDDR6. The NVIDIA card’s 12 GB capacity advantage is significant for large datasets, though its bandwidth lead is only 280.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s.

Q: Are they comparable in overall performance?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF has an average benchmark score of 117,088 in the 95th percentile, while the W6600X scores 107,342 in the 94th percentile. The NVIDIA card leads by about 9% on average.

Q: What interface does each card use?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF uses PCIe 4.0 x16, while the W6600X uses Apple MPX. The W6600X also has no display outputs, whereas the RTX 4000 SFF offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF has a 70 W TDP with a suggested 250 W PSU, while the W6600X has a 120 W TDP with a suggested 300 W PSU. The NVIDIA card consumes less power while delivering higher compute performance.

Q: Does the W6600X have any advantages over the RTX 4000 SFF?

A: Yes, the W6600X has a higher boost clock (2479 MHz versus 1560 MHz), higher pixel rate (158.7 GPixel/s versus 99.84 GPixel/s), and higher texture rate (317.3 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s). It also has higher FP16 throughput at 20.31 TFLOPS versus 19.17 TFLOPS.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The RTX 4000 SFF is listed as Active, while the W6600X is End-of-life. The RTX 4000 SFF was released in March 2023, and the W6600X in August 2021.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every spec field. The RTX 4000 SFF uses the AD104 chip on a 5 nm process, while the W6600X uses Navi 23 on a 7 nm process. Transistor counts are 35,800 million versus 11,060 million, and die sizes are 294 mm² versus 237 mm². Transistor density is 121.8M per mm² on the NVIDIA card versus 46.7M per mm² on the AMD card.

Clocks diverge significantly: the RTX 4000 SFF has a 720 MHz base and 1560 MHz boost, while the W6600X has a 2068 MHz base and 2479 MHz boost. Memory differs in size (20 GB versus 8 GB), bus width (160-bit versus 128-bit), and bandwidth (280.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s). The RTX 4000 SFF has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 48 RT cores, and 192 tensor cores; the W6600X has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 RT cores, with no tensor cores.

Pixel rate favors the W6600X at 158.7 GPixel/s versus 99.84 GPixel/s, as does texture rate at 317.3 GTexel/s versus 299.5 GTexel/s. FP32 is higher on the RTX 4000 SFF at 19.17 TFLOPS versus 10.15 TFLOPS, while FP16 is higher on the W6600X at 20.31 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 19.17 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP is 70 W for the NVIDIA card and 120 W for the AMD card, with suggested PSUs of 250 W and 300 W, respectively. The RTX 4000 SFF uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the W6600X uses Apple MPX and has no outputs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W6600X has a launch MSRP of 699 USD.