AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two professional GPUs. In the two recorded head-to-head tests, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins outright, taking both the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan comparisons. The most significant margin appears in the OpenCL test, where the W6800 scores 121,808 against the W7600's 81,528. That represents a 49.4% advantage, a substantial lead that underscores the older card's raw compute capability in general-purpose workloads.

The Vulkan test narrows the gap considerably. The W6800 posts 109,961, while the W7600 counters with 92,688. The delta shrinks to 18.6%, still a decisive win for the W6800, but it shows that the newer architecture of the W7600 can partially offset its hardware deficit in certain API environments. Across the two shared tests, the W6800 records a total of 2 wins, with the W7600 earning none.

Looking at the broader database averages, the W6800 holds an average benchmark score of 135,396, placing it in the 96th percentile of all GPUs tracked. The W7600, by contrast, averages 87,108, which still lands it in the 93rd percentile. The absolute score difference is 48,288 points, roughly a 55% lead for the W6800 when comparing their average results, a figure that aligns closely with the OpenCL head-to-head result.

The W6800's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA A10M at 135,230 (0.1% behind) and the NVIDIA RTX 4000 Ada Generation at 135,218 (also 0.1% behind). The W6800 also edges out the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo by 0.3% and the AMD Radeon PRO V620 by 0.8%. This places the W6800 in a tight cluster where a few hundred points separate it from its direct competitors.

For the W7600, the competitive landscape is different. It trails the NVIDIA RTX A4500 by 5% and the RTX A4500 Mobile by 4.4%. It sits just 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro GP100, while leading the NVIDIA CMP 40HX by 1.7%. The W7600's percentile placement indicates it sits well above the median GPU, but the W6800's placement in the top 4% of all recorded GPUs confirms its position as a significantly higher-tier product.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is generational. The W6800 is built on RDNA 2.0, using the Navi 21 chip, while the W7600 employs the newer RDNA 3.0 architecture with the Navi 33 chip, codenamed Hotpink Bonefish. The W6800 belongs to the Navi II Series, and the W7600 is part of the Navi III Series, making this a direct comparison between the previous and current architecture generations.

The manufacturing process differs, with the W6800 using a 7 nm node from TSMC, while the W7600 uses TSMC's 6 nm node. The transistor density tells a story of efficiency: the W6800 packs 26,800 million transistors across a 520 mm² die, yielding a density of 51.5M transistors per square millimeter. The W7600 contains 13,300 million transistors on a much smaller 204 mm² die, but its density rises to 65.2M per square millimeter. This indicates that the newer node allows for a more compact and denser design, even with a significant reduction in raw transistor count.

Clock speeds also reflect the generational shift. The W6800 has a base clock of 1575 MHz and a boost clock of 2322 MHz. The W7600 starts higher at 1720 MHz base and boosts to 2440 MHz. Despite having far fewer computing units, the W7600 achieves a higher FP32 throughput of 19.99 TFLOPS compared to the W6800's 17.83 TFLOPS. This is a remarkable outcome, showing that the RDNA 3.0 architecture's efficiency gains allow it to outperform the older chip in raw floating-point math despite having nearly half the shading units (2048 versus 3840) and far fewer texture mapping units (128 versus 240).

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The W6800 features 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. While the W7600's memory runs at a faster effective speed of 18 Gbps versus the W6800's 16 Gbps, the narrower bus halves the potential bandwidth. The W6800's advantage in memory capacity and bandwidth is a critical factor for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W7600 offers newer display outputs with 4x DisplayPort 2.1, whereas the W6800 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a.

The Verdict

The data directs different users to different cards without ambiguity. For workloads that stress raw compute, large memory footprints, and maximum bandwidth, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 is the clear choice. Its 49.4% lead in OpenCL is decisive, and its 32 GB frame buffer is four times larger than the W7600's 8 GB. The benchmark results show it outperforming the W7600 in every head-to-head test recorded, and its 96th percentile placement in the database confirms it as a top-tier performer. The W6800 is also the card for those who need multi-display setups, offering six outputs versus four.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is not a weak product; it is in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, but it is in a lower performance class. Its 19.99 TFLOPS FP32 rating is higher on paper, but the actual application tests show it cannot translate that theoretical peak into a win in the recorded workloads. It is the card for users who prioritize the newer architecture's efficiency, its smaller physical footprint, or its lower power draw. The data shows the W6800 as the superior performer in the two tests they share, so any user whose software relies on OpenCL or Vulkan should select it without hesitation.

The W7600's only advantages in the recorded data are its higher raw FP32 and FP16 TFLOPS figures and its lower power consumption. The W6800 leads in memory capacity, memory bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, and shading units. The verdict from the data is simple: the W6800 is the stronger workstation GPU, and the W7600 is a capable alternative for those who need a single-slot, lower-power solution and can accept a significant performance trade-off.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The W6800 uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 7 nm process, while the W7600 uses RDNA 3.0 on a 6 nm process. The chip is Navi 21 for the W6800 and Navi 33 for the W7600. Transistor count is 26,800 million for the W6800 and 13,300 million for the W7600, with die sizes of 520 mm² and 204 mm² respectively. Transistor density is 51.5M per mm² for the W6800 and 65.2M per mm² for the W7600.

Base clock is 1575 MHz on the W6800 versus 1720 MHz on the W7600, and boost clock is 2322 MHz versus 2440 MHz. Memory speed is 16 Gbps effective for the W6800 and 18 Gbps effective for the W7600. Memory size is 32 GB versus 8 GB, with bus widths of 256 bit and 128 bit, and bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s. Shading units are 3840 versus 2048, TMUs are 240 versus 128, ROPs are 96 versus 64, and RT cores are 60 versus 32. Pixel rate is 222.9 GPixel/s versus 156.2 GPixel/s, texture rate is 557.3 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 17.83 TFLOPS versus 19.99 TFLOPS. FP16 is 35.67 TFLOPS versus 39.98 TFLOPS. The W6800 draws 250 W and requires a 600 W PSU, while the W7600 draws 130 W and requires a 300 W PSU. The W6800 is dual-slot with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors, while the W7600 is single-slot with a single 6-pin connector. The W6800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, the W7600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a for the W6800 and 4x DisplayPort 2.1 for the W7600.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins, scoring 121,808 against the W7600's 81,528, a 49.4% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The W6800 has an average score of 135,396, while the W7600 has an average of 87,108. The W6800 is ahead by 48,288 points.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The W6800 has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: Which architecture is newer?

A: The W7600 uses the newer RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the W6800 uses RDNA 2.0.

Q: What is the FP32 performance difference?

A: The W7600 has a higher FP32 rating of 19.99 TFLOPS, while the W6800 has 17.83 TFLOPS.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The W6800 has a higher memory bandwidth of 512.0 GB/s, compared to the W7600's 288.0 GB/s.