AMD Radeon Pro W6900X vs AMD Radeon RX 6650M Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro W6900X vs AMD Radeon RX 6650M is a comparison of two very different RDNA 2.0 parts. One is a workstation-class accelerator built for Apple’s MPX ecosystem, the other is a mobile GPU designed for laptops. The benchmark data shows a clear separation in performance, but the gap is not uniform across every metric. The recorded scores reveal where each card holds an advantage, and the architectural specs explain why.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W6900X takes a decisive lead in every recorded benchmark. In Geekbench OpenCL, the W6900X scores 130,035, while the RX 6650M scores 65,800. That is a 97.6% advantage for the Pro card. In Geekbench Vulkan, the W6900X scores 148,865, against 77,735 for the RX 6650M, a 91.5% lead. The W6900X also has a Geekbench Metal result of 226,821, a benchmark the RX 6650M does not appear in the database for.

The RX 6650M has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data, yet its performance profile is still notable for its class. It sits at the 91st percentile among all GPUs, while the W6900X sits at the 97th percentile. That placement means the mobile card is not a low-end part; it outperforms a significant portion of the desktop and mobile GPU market. The W6900X, however, is in the top 3% of all recorded GPUs, which places it in a different performance tier.

In terms of raw compute, the W6900X delivers 22.23 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the RX 6650M delivers 8.659 TFLOPS. For FP16, the W6900X outputs 44.46 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), and the RX 6650M outputs 17.32 TFLOPS. This makes the W6900X roughly 2.5 times faster in both precision formats, which aligns with the benchmark deltas. The W6900X also has a much higher average benchmark score of 168,574, compared to 71,768 for the RX 6650M.

The RX 6650M’s strongest relative showing is in Vulkan, where it scores 77,735. That is still 91.5% behind the W6900X, but the Vulkan result is closer to its OpenCL score than the W6900X’s Vulkan result is to its OpenCL score. The data suggests the RX 6650M is more consistent across these two APIs, while the W6900X scales better in Vulkan.

For users who need maximum compute throughput, the W6900X is the clear pick. For mobile deployments where power and space are limited, the RX 6650M provides a measurable level of performance without requiring a discrete power connection. The benchmark wins all go to the W6900X, but the context of the mobile card’s intended use case is important.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs use the same RDNA 2.0 architecture, but they are built on different chips. The W6900X uses the Navi 21 chip, while the RX 6650M uses the Navi 23 chip. Both are fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, but the die sizes differ substantially. Navi 21 measures 520 mm², and Navi 23 measures 237 mm². The transistor counts also diverge: the W6900X has 26,800 million transistors, while the RX 6650M has 11,060 million. The transistor density is slightly higher on the W6900X at 51.5M per mm², versus 46.7M per mm² for the Navi 23 chip.

The W6900X carries 5120 shading units, 320 texture mapping units, and 128 render output units. The RX 6650M has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Ray tracing hardware is also scaled: the W6900X has 80 RT cores, and the RX 6650M has 28. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so the feature set for modern APIs is identical.

The memory subsystem is a major point of departure. The W6900X has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6650M has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, for 224.0 GB/s. That is a 2.3x bandwidth advantage for the Pro card. The memory clock is also higher: the W6900X runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the RX 6650M runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

The clock speeds tell a different story. The RX 6650M has a base clock of 2068 MHz, a boost clock of 2416 MHz, and a game clock of 2222 MHz. The W6900X has a base clock of 1825 MHz and a boost clock of 2171 MHz, with no game clock listed. Despite the mobile card having higher clocks, the W6900X still wins on throughput because it has nearly three times the shading units and twice the ROPs.

Power consumption is another key split. The W6900X has a TDP of 300 W and a suggested power supply of 700 W. The RX 6650M has a TDP of 120 W, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The bus interface also differs: the W6900X uses an Apple MPX connector, while the RX 6650M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are also different: the W6900X has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 4x Thunderbolt, while the RX 6650M is listed as “Portable Device Dependent.”

The W6900X is physically a large card, measuring 267 mm in length and 120 mm in height. The RX 6650M has no listed dimensions, as it is an integrated mobile part, and its slot width is listed as “IGP.” The W6900X has no slot width listed, but its dimensions suggest a standard desktop-style card. The RX 6650M is a mobile-class chip with no power connectors, designed to be soldered onto a motherboard.

The W6900X was released in August 2021, while the RX 6650M was released in January 2022. Both are end-of-life products. The RX 6650M has a predecessor listed as Polaris Mobile, while the W6900X has no predecessor or successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W6900X has an average benchmark score of 168,574, compared to 71,768 for the AMD Radeon RX 6650M.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The W6900X scores 148,865, and the RX 6650M scores 77,735. The W6900X is 91.5% higher.

Q: How much video memory does each GPU have?

A: The W6900X has 32 GB of GDDR6 memory, and the RX 6650M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The W6900X has a TDP of 300 W, while the RX 6650M has a TDP of 120 W.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 6650M has a boost clock of 2416 MHz, while the W6900X has a boost clock of 2171 MHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The W6900X has 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and the RX 6650M has 224.0 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The chip is different: Navi 21 versus Navi 23. The die size is 520 mm² versus 237 mm². Transistor count is 26,800 million versus 11,060 million. Transistor density is higher on the W6900X at 51.5M per mm², compared to 46.7M per mm² on the RX 6650M.

Base clock: 1825 MHz on the W6900X, 2068 MHz on the RX 6650M. Boost clock: 2170 MHz versus 2416 MHz. The RX 6650M also has a listed game clock of 2222 MHz, which the W6900X does not have. Memory clock: 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Memory size: 32 GB versus 8 GB. Memory type is GDDR6 for both. Bus width is 256 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth is 512.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s.

Shading units: 5120 versus 1792. TMUs: 320 versus 112. ROPs: 128 versus 64. RT cores: 80 versus 28. Pixel rate: 277.9 GPixel/s versus 154.6 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 694.7 GTexel/s versus 270.6 GTexel/s. FP32: 22.23 TFLOPS versus 8.659 TFLOPS. FP16: 44.46 TFLOPS versus 17.32 TFLOPS.

TDP: 300 W versus 120 W. The W6900X has a suggested PSU of 700 W, while the RX 6650M has none listed. The bus interface is Apple MPX versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1 and 4x Thunderbolt versus “Portable Device Dependent.” The W6900X has dimensions of 267 mm length and 120 mm height, while the RX 6650M has no dimensions. The RX 6650M has a slot width of IGP and no power connectors, while the W6900X lists neither slot width nor power connectors.

The W6900X has a launch MSRP of 5,999 USD. The RX 6650M has no launch MSRP listed. Release dates: 2021-08-02 for the W6900X, 2022-01-03 for the RX 6650M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two common benchmark tests between these GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the AMD Radeon Pro W6900X wins outright.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the W6900X scores 130,035, and the RX 6650M scores 65,800. That is a delta of 97.6%, meaning the W6900X is nearly double the performance of the RX 6650M. This is a massive margin, driven by the W6900X’s 5120 shading units versus 1792, and its 512.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 224.0 GB/s. The OpenCL workload is compute-heavy, and the W6900X’s larger chip has more raw throughput.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the W6900X scores 148,865, and the RX 6650M scores 77,735. The delta is 91.5%, still a large gap but slightly smaller than the OpenCL difference. Vulkan is a lower-level API, and the RX 6650M’s higher boost clock (2416 MHz) and game clock (2222 MHz) may help it mitigate some of the architectural disadvantage. However, the W6900X still has more than 2.8 times the shading units and a 2.3x memory bandwidth advantage, which cannot be overcome by clock speed alone.

The W6900X also has a Geekbench Metal score of 226,821, but the RX 6650M has no recorded Metal result. Metal is Apple’s GPU API, and the W6900X is designed for Apple’s Mac Pro, so its appearance is expected. No head-to-head comparison is possible for that test.

The average score of the W6900X is 168,574, which is 129.8% higher than the RX 6650M’s 71,768. The W6900X is in the 97th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6650M is in the 91st percentile. The nearest rivals to the W6900X are the NVIDIA RTX 4500 Ada Generation (166,094 average, 1.5% lower), NVIDIA RTX A5500 (165,217 average, 2% lower), AMD Radeon PRO W7800 (164,894 average, 2.2% lower), and NVIDIA A100 PCIe 40 GB (162,504 average, 3.7% lower). The nearest rivals to the RX 6650M are NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (72,098 average, 0.5% higher), AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 (72,379 average, 0.8% higher), AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829 average, 1.3% higher), and AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition (73,370 average, 2.2% higher).

The RX 6650M is actually within 2.2% of several desktop-class GPUs, which shows that it is a capable mobile part. But it is in a completely different performance tier from the W6900X. The delta of 97.6% in OpenCL means the W6900X is roughly twice as fast, and a 91.5% delta in Vulkan confirms that the gap is consistent across APIs. The W6900X wins 2-0 in head-to-head tests, and the only variable is the size of the margin.