AMD Radeon Pro W6600X vs NVIDIA RTX A4500 Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X and NVIDIA RTX A4500 are both end-of-life workstation GPUs, but they target very different segments of the market. The W6600X is a Mac-specific board with no display outputs, while the RTX A4500 is a conventional PCIe card. Benchmark results show a clear performance gap, but the data also reveals that the W6600X is closer to its rivals than the A4500 is to its own, making the comparison more nuanced than a simple spec-sheet glance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark results are not available in the data, so this comparison relies on the average scores and nearest rival relationships for each card. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 holds a decisive lead in raw compute performance. Its average benchmark score is 91,671, which is 14.6% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X’s average of 107,342? No, that is incorrect. The W6600X has a higher average score. The W6600X’s average of 107,342 is 17.1% above the A4500’s 91,671. This is a significant margin, placing the AMD card in a stronger overall position despite the NVIDIA card’s larger memory pool.

Looking at the rival data, the W6600X is 2.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II (score 109,617) and 3.1% behind the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 (score 110,725). It also beats the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 (score 101,872) by 5.4%. This places the W6600X in the upper echelon of workstation GPUs, just shy of the top-tier cards. The A4500, by contrast, is 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (score 91,134) and 4.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (score 87,445). It is 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon Instinct MI60 (score 92,466) and 5.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 (score 87,108). The A4500’s position is solidly mid-pack among its peers, whereas the W6600X sits near the top.

In API-specific tests, the A4500 shows its strengths in different workloads. It scores 141,837 in Geekbench OpenCL and 129,980 in Geekbench Vulkan. The W6600X only has a Geekbench Metal score of 107,342. This single score is 24.3% lower than the A4500’s OpenCL result and 17.4% lower than the Vulkan result. However, the W6600X’s Metal score is its only data point, and it directly feeds its high average, which suggests the card is particularly well-optimized for Apple’s Metal API. The A4500’s average is dragged down by the inclusion of a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 3,196, which is a much lower number than its Geekbench scores.

The percentile rankings tell a similar story. The W6600X sits at the 94th percentile of all GPUs, while the A4500 is at the 93rd percentile. This is a narrow gap, indicating that despite the 17.1% difference in average scores, both cards are in the top tier of performance. The W6600X’s higher percentile is consistent with its position among its rivals, where it is closer to the top performers. The A4500’s lower percentile reflects its mid-pack standing relative to its own nearest rivals.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X wins in overall average benchmark score, achieving 107,342 versus 91,671 for the NVIDIA RTX A4500. This suggests the AMD card is the stronger choice for applications that rely on the aggregate of its tested workloads, particularly those that leverage Metal. Its percentile ranking of 94% versus 93% reinforces this, showing it performs better relative to the entire GPU market.

The NVIDIA RTX A4500 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. It offers 20 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 640.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W6600X has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. For tasks that require large datasets to be resident in VRAM, such as massive 3D scenes or high-resolution textures, the A4500’s 2.5x memory capacity and 2.5x bandwidth are decisive advantages. The A4500 also shows a higher texture rate of 369.6 GTexel/s versus 317.3 GTexel/s for the W6600X, indicating faster texture processing.

The W6600X counters with a higher pixel rate of 158.7 GPixel/s, slightly edging out the A4500’s 158.4 GPixel/s. This is a marginal difference, but it suggests the AMD card is marginally better at fill-rate-bound operations. In terms of compute, the A4500’s FP32 throughput of 23.65 TFLOPS is more than double the W6600X’s 10.15 TFLOPS, making it the clear winner for general-purpose compute workloads. The A4500 also has a 1:1 FP16 ratio, achieving 23.65 TFLOPS, while the W6600X only reaches 20.31 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, meaning its FP16 performance is halved in practice.

The A4500 has 7,168 shading units, 224 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, compared to 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs on the W6600X. This massive difference in shading units explains the A4500’s FP32 advantage. The A4500 also has 56 RT cores and 224 tensor cores, while the W6600X has only 32 RT cores and no tensor cores. This makes the A4500 the better choice for ray-traced rendering and AI-accelerated workloads.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture using the Navi 23 chip, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA RTX A4500 uses the Ampere architecture with the GA102 chip, manufactured on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The process node difference is notable, with the W6600X using a smaller node that offers better transistor density. The W6600X packs 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, yielding a density of 46.7 million transistors per mm². The A4500 has 28,300 million transistors on a 628 mm² die, with a density of 45.1 million per mm². Despite the larger chip, the A4500’s density is slightly lower due to the older 8 nm process.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The W6600X uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with a 128-bit interface, while the A4500 uses 20 GB of GDDR6 with a 320-bit interface. Both run at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, but the A4500’s wider bus gives it the 2.5x bandwidth advantage. The A4500 also has a standard PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the W6600X uses the Apple MPX bus interface, which is proprietary to Apple’s Mac Pro systems.

The W6600X has no display outputs, making it a compute-only board for Mac environments. The A4500 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, allowing direct display connectivity. The A4500 includes 224 tensor cores for AI and deep learning tasks, a feature the W6600X lacks entirely. The W6600X’s RT cores are fewer at 32 versus 56, indicating a weaker ray-tracing capability.

The power requirements differ significantly. The W6600X has a TDP of 120 W and a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the A4500 has a TDP of 200 W and a suggested PSU of 550 W. The A4500 requires a single 8-pin power connector, whereas the W6600X has no specified power connectors, likely drawing power from the MPX slot. Both are dual-slot cards, but the A4500 has specified dimensions of 267 mm in length and 112 mm in height, while the W6600X has no listed dimensions.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X is the better choice for users who rely on Apple’s Metal API and need a high average benchmark score. Its 107,342 average is 17.1% higher than the A4500’s, and its 94th percentile ranking confirms it is a top-tier performer. This card is strictly for Mac Pro systems, given its Apple MPX interface and lack of display outputs. It wins on pixel rate and transistor density, making it a capable choice for fill-rate-bound tasks in that ecosystem.

The NVIDIA RTX A4500 is the better choice for users who need massive memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 20 GB VRAM and 640.0 GB/s bandwidth are critical for large datasets, and its 23.65 TFLOPS FP32 performance is more than double the W6600X’s. The A4500 also supports tensor cores, making it suitable for AI workloads, and has display outputs for direct monitoring. Its average score of 91,671 is lower, but it excels in specific compute-heavy scenarios.

For a builder targeting a Mac Pro, the W6600X is the only option here due to its bus interface. For a PC workstation, the A4500 is the practical pick, offering more memory and compute power. The data does not show a single winner; it shows two cards optimized for different environments and workloads. The W6600X wins on overall score, but the A4500 wins on raw specifications that matter for professional workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X has a higher average score of 107,342, which is 17.1% above the NVIDIA RTX A4500’s 91,671.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 has 20 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X has 8 GB. This is a 2.5x difference in capacity.

Q: Does the A4500 support tensor cores?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA RTX A4500 has 224 tensor cores, which are absent from the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X.

Q: Which card has display outputs?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X has no display outputs.

Q: What is the FP32 performance comparison?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4500 achieves 23.65 TFLOPS FP32, which is more than double the AMD Radeon Pro W6600X’s 10.15 TFLOPS.

Q: Which card is ranked higher among all GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6600X is at the 94th percentile, one point higher than the NVIDIA RTX A4500’s 93rd percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro W6600X | NVIDIA RTX A4500 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Ampere |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 8 nm |

| Transistors | 11,060 million | 28,300 million |

| Die Size | 237 mm² | 628 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 46.7M / mm² | 45.1M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 20 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 320 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 640.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 7168 |

| TMUs | 128 | 224 |

| ROPs | 64 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 32 | 56 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 224 |

| FP32 Performance | 10.15 TFLOPS | 23.65 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 20.31 TFLOPS (2:1) | 23.65 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 158.7 GPixel/s | 158.4 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 317.3 GTexel/s | 369.6 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 120 W | 200 W |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 550 W |

| Power Connectors | None listed | 1x 8-pin |

| Bus Interface | Apple MPX | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 267 mm length, 112 mm height |

| Release Date | 2021-08-02 | 2021-11-22 |

| Predecessor | None listed | Quadro Turing |

| Successor | None listed | Workstation Ada |