AMD Radeon Pro W6600X vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Comparison

# NVIDIA RTX A5500 vs AMD Radeon Pro W6600X

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 and AMD Radeon Pro W6600X occupy very different corners of the workstation GPU market. The database records show the RTX A5500 with an average benchmark score of 165,217, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the W6600X averages 107,342, good for the 94th percentile. Despite the percentile gap being modest, the raw score difference is substantial: the RTX A5500 outperforms the W6600X by roughly 54% in overall recorded performance. The two cards share several modern features, including DirectX 12 Ultimate support, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but their architectural philosophies, memory configurations, and intended platforms diverge sharply.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A5500 is the clear winner in raw compute and memory-intensive workloads. Its 34.10 TFLOPS of FP32 performance dwarfs the W6600X's 10.15 TFLOPS, a 3.36x advantage that shows up across OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks. The A5500 also dominates in memory capacity and bandwidth, with 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus delivering 768.0 GB/s, compared to the W6600X's 8 GB on a 128-bit bus at 256.0 GB/s. For tasks like large dataset manipulation, multi-GPU rendering, or complex simulation, the A5500's headroom is decisive.

The W6600X, however, wins in efficiency and platform integration. Its 120 W TDP is less than half the A5500's 230 W, and it requires only a 300 W suggested PSU versus 550 W. The W6600X is built for Apple MPX, meaning it slots into Mac Pro systems without any display outputs of its own, relying on the host system for display. This makes it a specialized component for Apple's ecosystem rather than a general-purpose workstation card.

The W6600X also wins in FP16 throughput relative to its FP32 capability. Its FP16 rating of 20.31 TFLOPS comes from a 2:1 ratio, meaning it can double FP16 work compared to FP32. The A5500's FP16 is 34.10 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, so it does not gain extra throughput on half-precision tasks. For workloads that leverage FP16 heavily, the W6600X's architecture is more efficient per watt, though the A5500 still delivers higher absolute FP16 numbers.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The RTX A5500 uses NVIDIA's Ampere architecture on the GA102 chip, fabricated on Samsung's 8 nm process. The die measures 628 mm² and packs 28,300 million transistors, yielding a density of 45.1M transistors per mm². It includes 10,240 shading units, 320 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 80 RT cores, and 320 tensor cores. This is a massive, full-featured chip designed for maximum throughput across every compute domain.

The W6600X uses AMD's RDNA 2.0 architecture on the Navi 23 chip, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. The die is much smaller at 237 mm², with 11,060 million transistors and a density of 46.7M per mm², slightly higher than the A5500. It carries 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 RT cores, but no tensor cores. The transistor density advantage suggests AMD's process is more refined, but the sheer scale of the A5500's chip overwhelms that efficiency.

Clock speeds tell a complementary story. The W6600X runs at a base of 2068 MHz and boosts to 2479 MHz, far above the A5500's 1080 MHz base and 1665 MHz boost. The higher clocks help the smaller Navi 23 chip compensate for its reduced core count, but they cannot bridge the compute gap. The W6600X's pixel rate of 158.7 GPixel/s nearly matches the A5500's 159.8 GPixel/s, an impressive feat for a chip with fewer ROPs. Its texture rate of 317.3 GTexel/s, however, falls well short of the A5500's 532.8 GTexel/s.

Both cards use GDDR6 memory at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed. The W6600X's 128-bit bus halves the A5500's 384-bit bus, explaining the bandwidth difference. The A5500's 768.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s is a 3x gap that matters for memory-bound tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain direct head-to-head benchmark runs between these two cards. Instead, the available measurements cover different APIs: the RTX A5500 was tested in Geekbench OpenCL (174,637) and Geekbench Vulkan (155,797), while the W6600X was tested in Geekbench Metal (107,342). This makes a direct apples-to-apples comparison impossible, but the averages still reveal the hierarchy.

The RTX A5500's OpenCL score of 174,637 is its strongest recorded result, while its Vulkan score of 155,797 is lower but still far above the W6600X's Metal score. The W6600X's only recorded benchmark, Metal, reflects its Apple MPX design, which targets macOS environments where Metal is the primary API. The 107,342 score places it in the 94th percentile, but that percentile is based on all GPUs, not just workstation cards.

Comparing the averages, the RTX A5500's 165,217 is 53.9% higher than the W6600X's 107,342. The nearest rivals for the A5500 include the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 (164,894, a 0.2% difference), the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094, a -0.5% difference), and the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X (168,574, a -2% difference). This places the A5500 in a tight cluster of high-end workstation cards where scores are within 2% of each other.

The W6600X's nearest rivals tell a different story. The AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo scores 106,750, just 0.6% below the W6600X, while the AMD Radeon Pro Vega II scores 109,617, 2.1% higher. The AMD Radeon PRO W7900 reaches 110,725, 3.1% ahead, and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000 trails at 101,872, 5.4% behind. The W6600X sits in a lower performance tier, competing with older Vega-based cards rather than modern flagship parts.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory, and what does that mean for workloads?

A: The RTX A5500 has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus with 768.0 GB/s bandwidth. The W6600X has 8 GB on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s. The A5500 can hold three times more data in VRAM and move it three times faster, making it suitable for large textures, complex scenes, or multi-app workflows that the W6600X cannot accommodate.

Q: Can the W6600X be used in a standard PC?

A: No. The W6600X uses the Apple MPX bus interface and has no display outputs. It is designed exclusively for Apple Mac Pro systems that provide their own display connections. The RTX A5500 uses PCIe 4.0 x16 and includes 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, making it a standard workstation card for conventional PCs.

Q: How do their ray tracing capabilities compare?

A: The RTX A5500 includes 80 RT cores, while the W6600X has 32. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate, which includes ray tracing requirements. The A5500's higher RT core count and overall compute power suggest it can handle more complex ray tracing workloads, though the database does not include dedicated ray tracing benchmarks.

Q: What is the production status of these cards?

A: Both are listed as end-of-life. The RTX A5500 was released on March 21, 2022, and the W6600X on August 2, 2021. The A5500's predecessor is Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada, while the W6600X has no recorded predecessor or successor in the database.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The W6600X has a 120 W TDP and a 300 W suggested PSU, while the RTX A5500 has a 230 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU. The W6600X draws nearly half the power, and its higher clock speeds help it achieve a respectable pixel rate despite fewer cores.

Q: What does the transistor density difference imply?

A: The W6600X has a density of 46.7M transistors per mm², slightly higher than the A5500's 45.1M. This reflects the W6600X's 7 nm TSMC process versus the A5500's 8 nm Samsung process. The W6600X packs more transistors per area, but the A5500's die is 2.65x larger, giving it far more total transistors.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the RTX A5500 is the more capable workstation GPU by a wide margin. Its 34.10 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 24 GB memory, 768.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 80 RT cores make it a top-tier card in the 97th percentile. The W6600X, at 10.15 TFLOPS and 8 GB, is a solid performer in the 94th percentile, but it is not in the same performance class.

For professionals who need maximum compute throughput, large VRAM capacity, or broad API support across OpenCL and Vulkan, the RTX A5500 is the obvious choice. Its benchmark scores place it alongside the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 and NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation, within 0.5% of both. The W6600X, meanwhile, sits closer to older Vega cards and the Quadro RTX 6000, with scores ranging from 101,872 to 110,725.

The W6600X makes sense only in its specific context: Apple MPX systems where its 120 W power draw, 7 nm efficiency, and Metal API support are advantages. Users outside that ecosystem would find no display outputs and no standard PCIe interface, making it an impractical choice. The RTX A5500, with its PCIe 4.0 x16 interface and four DisplayPort outputs, works in standard systems and offers far more headroom.

The verdict from the database is clear: choose the RTX A5500 for general workstation use, heavy compute, and large memory workloads. Choose the W6600X only if you are building within Apple's Mac Pro platform and prioritize power efficiency over raw performance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA RTX A5500 | AMD Radeon Pro W6600X |

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

| Chip | GA102 | Navi 23 |

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 8 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

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

| Die Size | 628 mm² | 237 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 1080 MHz | 2068 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1665 MHz | 2479 MHz |

| Memory Size | 24 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 768.0 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 10240 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 320 | 128 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| RT Cores | 80 | 32 |

| Tensor Cores | 320 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 159.8 GPixel/s | 158.7 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 532.8 GTexel/s | 317.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 34.10 TFLOPS | 10.15 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 34.10 TFLOPS (1:1) | 20.31 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 230 W | 120 W |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | Apple MPX |

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

| Release Date | 2022-03-21 | 2021-08-02 |

| Launch MSRP | None recorded | 699 USD |