AMD Radeon Pro W6800X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600 Comparison

# AMD Radeon Pro W6800X vs AMD Radeon PRO W7600

The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X and AMD Radeon PRO W7600 occupy different tiers of AMD's professional graphics lineup, with the former built for high-end Mac workstations and the latter aimed at compact PC workstations. Benchmark data in the database shows a clear performance gap: the W6800X averages 160,671 across its recorded tests, placing it in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7600 averages 87,108, sitting in the 93rd percentile. That 84.4% difference in average score translates into very different usage scenarios, and the architectural split between RDNA 2.0 and RDNA 3.0 reinforces the divide.

Where Each One Wins

The W6800X wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, which is Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the W6800X scores 124,498 against the W7600's 81,528, a 52.7% advantage. This makes the W6800X the clear choice for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, such as rendering, simulation, or any professional application that relies on general-purpose GPU compute. The card's 32 GB of memory and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth also position it for large datasets, multi-layer compositing, or high-resolution texture work where the W7600's 8 GB and 288.0 GB/s would run out of headroom.

The W7600, despite losing the single recorded benchmark, wins in efficiency and physical design. Its 130 W TDP against the W6800X's 200 W means it generates less heat and requires a less demanding power supply (300 W suggested versus 550 W). It is a single-slot card, while the W6800X is quad-slot, so the W7600 fits into compact chassis or dense multi-GPU configurations where space is at a premium. The W7600 also uses a standard PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and a single 6-pin power connector, making it far easier to install in a typical PC workstation. The W6800X uses Apple MPX for both power and bus, which means it is essentially locked to Apple's Mac Pro ecosystem.

For users who need modern display connectivity, the W7600 offers four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, whereas the W6800X provides one HDMI 2.1 and four Thunderbolt ports. The Thunderbolt ports on the W6800X are versatile for Mac users, but the W7600's DisplayPort 2.1 supports higher refresh rates and resolutions on standard PC monitors. The W7600 also has a higher boost clock (2440 MHz versus 2087 MHz) and higher FP32 throughput (19.99 TFLOPS versus 16.03 TFLOPS), which means in pure shader math, the smaller card is actually faster per clock. However, the W6800X compensates with more shading units (3840 versus 2048), more texture mapping units (240 versus 128), and more render output units (96 versus 64), giving it higher pixel and texture fill rates.

Architecture Differences

The W6800X uses the Navi 21 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. It packs 26,800 million transistors onto a 520 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 51.5 million per mm². The W7600 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process. It has 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, giving a higher density of 65.2 million per mm². The smaller, denser chip in the W7600 reflects the newer process node and the architectural efficiency gains of RDNA 3.0.

The W6800X includes 60 ray tracing cores, while the W7600 has 32. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. The W6800X has a larger memory bus (256 bit versus 128 bit), which directly drives its higher memory bandwidth. The W6800X's memory runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, while the W7600's memory runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective speed. The W7600's faster memory clock partially compensates for its narrower bus, but the bandwidth gap remains large.

The W6800X is from the Radeon Pro Mac (Navi II Series) generation, released in August 2021, and is now end-of-life. The W7600 is from the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation, released in August 2023, and is still active. The W7600 lists its predecessor as the Radeon Pro Vega, while the W6800X has no predecessor or successor listed in the database. The W6800X's codename is not recorded, but the W7600's codename is "Hotpink Bonefish," which suggests a more recent design cycle.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The W6800X scores 124,498, and the W7600 scores 81,528. The delta is 52.7% in favor of the W6800X. This is a substantial margin, indicating that for OpenCL compute tasks, the W6800X is roughly one and a half times faster than the W7600. The W6800X's advantage likely stems from its larger memory pool, wider memory bus, and higher number of compute units, even though its per-clock FP32 throughput is lower.

Beyond that single test, the percentile rankings provide context. The W6800X sits in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the W7600 sits in the 93rd percentile. The W6800X's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (average score 162,504, which is 1.1% higher), the AMD Radeon PRO W7800 (average score 164,894, 2.6% higher), the NVIDIA RTX A5500 (average score 165,217, 2.8% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (average score 166,094, 3.3% higher). This shows the W6800X is competitive with high-end data center and workstation GPUs, trailing them by only a few percentage points.

The W7600's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (average score 87,445, 0.4% higher), the NVIDIA CMP 40HX (average score 85,637, 1.7% lower), the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (average score 91,134, 4.4% higher), and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (average score 91,671, 5.0% higher). The W7600 sits within a tight cluster of mid-range professional cards, with the RTX A4500 desktop version being its closest significant competitor, about 5% ahead.

The W6800X also has a Geekbench Metal score of 196,844, which is not matched by the W7600 in the database. That Metal result suggests strong performance in Apple's graphics API, which aligns with the card's Mac-oriented design. The W7600 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 92,688, which the W6800X does not have recorded, indicating the W7600 is better suited for Vulkan-based workloads on PC platforms.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X, with a Geekbench OpenCL score of 124,498 versus 81,528 for the AMD Radeon PRO W7600, a 52.7% advantage.

Q: Which card uses less power?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has a TDP of 130 W, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X has a TDP of 200 W. The W7600 also requires a 300 W suggested power supply, compared to 550 W for the W6800X.

Q: Can the W6800X fit in a standard PC workstation?

A: No. The W6800X uses Apple MPX for both power and bus interface, and it is a quad-slot card. The W7600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and a single 6-pin power connector, making it suitable for standard PC workstations.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256 bit bus, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128 bit bus. The W6800X also has higher bandwidth at 512.0 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card supports newer display outputs?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X has one HDMI 2.1 and four Thunderbolt ports, which are useful for Mac peripherals but not standard PC displays.

Q: Is the W6800X still in production?

A: No, the W6800X is end-of-life. The W7600 is active and still in production.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has a boost clock of 2440 MHz, while the AMD Radeon Pro W6800X has a boost clock of 2087 MHz.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every major specification. The W6800X uses a 7 nm process, the W7600 uses 6 nm. The W6800X has 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, while the W7600 has 13,300 million on a 204 mm² die. The W6800X has 3840 shading units, 240 TMUs, 96 ROPs, and 60 RT cores; the W7600 has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 32 RT cores. The W6800X's base clock is 1800 MHz, boost is 2087 MHz; the W7600's base is 1720 MHz, boost is 2440 MHz. Memory speed: W6800X at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), W7600 at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). Memory size: 32 GB versus 8 GB. Bus width: 256 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth: 512.0 GB/s versus 288.0 GB/s. Pixel rate: 200.4 GPixel/s versus 156.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 500.9 GTexel/s versus 312.3 GTexel/s. FP32: 16.03 TFLOPS versus 19.99 TFLOPS. FP16: 32.06 TFLOPS versus 39.98 TFLOPS. TDP: 200 W versus 130 W. Slot width: quad-slot versus single-slot. Power connector: Apple MPX versus 1x 6-pin. Suggested PSU: 550 W versus 300 W. Bus interface: Apple MPX versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1 and 4x Thunderbolt versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1. Dimensions: 267 mm length and 120 mm height versus 241 mm length and 115 mm height. Production status: end-of-life versus active. Release date: August 2021 versus August 2023. The W6800X has a launch MSRP of 2,799 USD; the W7600 has a launch MSRP of 599 USD.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The AMD Radeon Pro W6800X is the stronger compute card, winning the only head-to-head benchmark by 52.7% and offering 32 GB of memory, a 256 bit bus, and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. It is also in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, within a few percentage points of cards like the NVIDIA A100 and the AMD Radeon PRO W7800. If your workload demands large memory capacity, high bandwidth, and maximum OpenCL throughput, and you are working inside an Apple Mac Pro, the W6800X is the obvious choice. Its quad-slot design and Apple MPX interface make it unsuitable for standard PCs, but within its intended ecosystem, it delivers top-tier performance.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is the practical choice for a standard PC workstation. It is single-slot, uses a 6-pin power connector, requires only a 300 W PSU, and runs at 130 W. It has higher FP32 and FP16 throughput than the W6800X, a higher boost clock, and four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs. Its 8 GB memory and 128 bit bus are limiting for very large datasets, but for typical CAD, video editing, or Vulkan-based workloads, the W7600 offers solid mid-range performance in the 93rd percentile, competing closely with the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (5% behind) and the RTX A4500 Mobile (4.4% behind). It is also the only one of the two that is still active in production, so it remains available for new builds. Choose the W6800X for raw compute and memory capacity in a Mac environment; choose the W7600 for flexibility, efficiency, and modern display support in a PC workstation.