AMD Radeon PRO W6800 vs NVIDIA PG506-232 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In the single available cross-platform benchmark, the NVIDIA PG506-232 delivers a decisive victory over the AMD Radeon PRO W6800. The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the PG506-232 scoring 225,124 points against the W6800's 121,808 points — a margin of 84.8% in favor of the NVIDIA card. This is not a marginal lead; the PG506-232 nearly doubles the AMD card's raw compute throughput in this synthetic workload.

Contextualizing the PG506-232's score, it lands in the 99th percentile of all GPUs, placing it among the highest-performing accelerators in the database. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800, by contrast, sits in the 96th percentile — still high, but a notable step below its competitor. The PG506-232's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA L20 at 251,147 (10.4% higher), the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D at 219,827 (2.4% lower), and the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB at 207,124 (8.7% lower). This positions the PG506-232 in a performance band well above most existing workstation and server accelerators, while the W6800's closest competitors — the AMD Radeon PRO V620 at 136,472 and the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X Duo at 135,774 — are within 0.8% of its average score.

The W6800's average benchmark score across all tests is 135,396, dragged down significantly by its OpenCL result. Its Metal score of 174,420 and Vulkan score of 109,961 show varied performance across APIs, but the database's average computation weights the OpenCL result heavily. The PG506-232's average score equals its OpenCL score at 225,124, reflecting that it was only tested with that one benchmark.

The 84.8% delta in OpenCL is the only head-to-head comparison available, but it is consistent with the broader positioning of these cards. The PG506-232's 99th percentile ranking versus the W6800's 96th percentile underscores a meaningful gap in peak compute capability, even if the AMD card excels in other dimensions like memory capacity and API support.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split between these two accelerators. In raw compute benchmarks, the NVIDIA PG506-232 is the unequivocal winner, outperforming the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 by 84.8% in OpenCL. For workloads that depend heavily on single-precision floating-point throughput or general compute acceleration — such as simulation, scientific computing, or certain AI inference tasks — the PG506-232 is the stronger choice based on available evidence.

However, the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 offers capabilities that the NVIDIA card lacks entirely. The W6800 provides 32 GB of GDDR6 memory versus the PG506-232's 24 GB of HBM2, and it includes display outputs (6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a) while the PG506-232 has no outputs at all. The W6800 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, whereas the PG506-232 lists no API support in the database. For rendering, visualization, or any workload requiring a display connection, the W6800 is the only viable option between the two.

The PG506-232 is positioned for server environments where compute density matters more than connectivity. Its dual-slot form factor, 165 W TDP, and 8-pin EPS power connector align with data-center expectations. The W6800's 250 W TDP and 600 W suggested PSU indicate a workstation-class part designed for desktop integration. The PG506-232's 2.4% lead over the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D and 8.7% lead over the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB show it holds its own against more expensive accelerators, while the W6800 sits in a cluster with its direct rivals within 0.8% of its score.

The verdict depends entirely on the use case. For headless compute servers, the PG506-232 is superior. For workstations needing displays, graphics APIs, and larger memory pools, the W6800 is the practical choice, despite its lower raw compute scores.

Architecture Differences

The two cards diverge fundamentally in their underlying architectures. The NVIDIA PG506-232 uses the GA100 chip built on Ampere architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process. This chip contains 54,200 million transistors on a 826 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.6 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 uses the Navi 21 chip on RDNA 2.0 architecture, also fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm node, but with 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die — a density of 51.5 million per square millimeter. The PG506-232's die is nearly 60% larger and packs more than double the transistor count.

Memory subsystems differ dramatically. The PG506-232 employs 24 GB of HBM2 on a 3072-bit bus, delivering 933.1 GB/s of bandwidth with memory clocked at 1215 MHz (2.4 Gbps effective). The W6800 uses 32 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, providing 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth — roughly 45% lower — with memory at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The PG506-232's HBM2 advantage in bandwidth is substantial, though the W6800 offers 8 GB more capacity.

Compute resources are allocated differently. The PG506-232 features 3584 shading units, 224 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs, along with 224 tensor cores but no ray tracing cores. Its clock speeds are 930 MHz base and 1440 MHz boost. The W6800 has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 60 ray tracing cores, with no tensor cores. Its clocks are significantly higher at 1575 MHz base and 2322 MHz boost. These clock differences explain why the W6800 achieves higher pixel and texture rates — 222.9 GPixel/s and 557.3 GTexel/s versus the PG506-232's 138.2 GPixel/s and 322.6 GTexel/s — despite having fewer total ROPs.

Peak floating-point performance tells a nuanced story. The PG506-232 delivers 10.32 TFLOPS in both FP32 and FP16 (1:1 ratio), reflecting a compute-oriented design. The W6800 achieves 17.83 TFLOPS in FP32 and 35.67 TFLOPS in FP16 (2:1 ratio), more than 70% higher in FP32. Yet the PG506-232's OpenCL score is 84.8% higher, suggesting that its memory bandwidth and tensor core throughput provide advantages that raw FP32 numbers do not capture.

Both cards are dual-slot and share the same 267 mm length, but the W6800 is slightly taller at 120 mm versus 112 mm and has a 50 mm width. The PG506-232 requires an 8-pin EPS connector with a 450 W suggested PSU; the W6800 uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin with a 600 W suggested PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in the benchmark data?

A: The NVIDIA PG506-232 scores 225,124 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 84.8% higher than the AMD Radeon PRO W6800's 121,808 in the same test.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon PRO W6800 have any advantages over the NVIDIA PG506-232?

A: Yes. The W6800 has 32 GB of memory versus 24 GB, includes 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs while the PG506-232 has none, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 APIs that the PG506-232 does not list.

Q: How do these cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The PG506-232 provides 933.1 GB/s of bandwidth via HBM2 on a 3072-bit bus, while the W6800 offers 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth via GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the performance difference between these cards and their nearest rivals?

A: The PG506-232 is 2.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7900D, 8.7% ahead of the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 80 GB, and 10.4% behind the NVIDIA L20. The W6800's closest rival, the AMD Radeon PRO V620, is 0.8% higher, while the NVIDIA A10M and RTX 4000 Ada Generation are both 0.1% lower.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute capability?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W6800 delivers 17.83 TFLOPS in FP32, compared to 10.32 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA PG506-232, despite the PG506-232 winning the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both cards are end-of-life. The PG506-232 was released on 2021-04-11 and the W6800 on 2021-06-07.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA PG506-232 wins in: Raw compute benchmarks, with an 84.8% OpenCL advantage. Its 99th percentile ranking versus the W6800's 96th percentile indicates superior performance among all GPUs. The PG506-232 also wins decisively in memory bandwidth at 933.1 GB/s versus 512.0 GB/s, making it better suited for memory-bandwidth-bound workloads. Its HBM2 memory on a 3072-bit bus provides more than 80% higher bandwidth, which partially explains its benchmark dominance. The card also has a lower TDP at 165 W versus 250 W, offering better performance per watt in compute tasks. Its tensor cores (224) enable hardware acceleration for AI workloads that the W6800 lacks entirely. The PG506-232's transistor count of 54,200 million versus 26,800 million reflects a fundamentally more complex compute engine.

AMD Radeon PRO W6800 wins in: Memory capacity, offering 32 GB versus 24 GB. This 8 GB advantage matters for large datasets or models that exceed the PG506-232's capacity. The W6800 has display outputs (6x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a), enabling direct monitor connectivity where the PG506-232 requires a separate display adapter. The W6800 supports modern graphics APIs including DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it compatible with consumer and professional graphics software. Its higher clock speeds (2322 MHz boost versus 1440 MHz) drive superior pixel and texture rates — 222.9 GPixel/s and 557.3 GTexel/s versus 138.2 GPixel/s and 322.6 GTexel/s. The W6800 also has 60 ray tracing cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing that the PG506-232 cannot perform. Its FP16 performance of 35.67 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) is more than three times the PG506-232's 10.32 TFLOPS, benefiting workloads that leverage packed math. The W6800's FP32 throughput of 17.83 TFLOPS exceeds the PG506-232's 10.32 TFLOPS by 73%, making it more capable for pure FP32 compute despite losing the OpenCL benchmark.

Workload-specific guidance: For headless compute servers, simulation clusters, or AI inference where memory bandwidth and tensor cores dominate, the PG506-232 is the data-backed choice. For interactive workstations, visualization, content creation, or any task requiring display output and broad API support, the W6800 is the only option between the two, despite its lower compute benchmark scores. The PG506-232's launch MSRP is not available, while the W6800's launch MSRP is 2,249 USD — but pricing should not be the primary consideration given the divergent feature sets.