AMD Radeon PRO W7500 vs AMD Radeon RX 6600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a split decision between the AMD Radeon RX 6600 and the AMD Radeon PRO W7500, with the RX 6600 taking 5 wins against the PRO W7500's 4. The most dramatic margin belongs to the PRO W7500 in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 58213 against 28850 for the RX 6600, a lead of 50.4%. This is the single largest delta in the comparison and signals a clear compute-oriented advantage for the workstation card.

The RX 6600 counters with strong showings in the legacy DirectX tests. In Passmark DirectX 10, the RX 6600 posts 95 versus 65 for the PRO W7500, a 46.2% advantage. The DirectX 11 gap is smaller but still decisive: 152 to 125, or 21.6% ahead. Even in DirectX 12, where both cards are modern, the RX 6600 leads 51 to 46, a 10.9% margin. The pattern here is consistent: the consumer card outperforms in rasterization-focused scenarios.

The Passmark G3D score reinforces that trend. The RX 6600 scores 15096, while the PRO W7500 manages 13368, putting the RX 6600 12.9% ahead in overall 3D graphics performance. Similarly, the Passmark GPU Compute test goes to the RX 6600 by 10.9%, with scores of 6554 against 5910. These are not trivial margins; they reflect real differences in how each card handles general graphics and compute workloads as measured by the database.

The PRO W7500's wins beyond OpenCL are narrower. In Geekbench Vulkan, it edges out the RX 6600 68634 to 67623, a slim 1.5% lead. The Passmark DirectX 9 result is nearly identical: 200 to 197, again a 1.5% difference in favor of the PRO W7500. The Passmark G2D test, which measures 2D graphics performance, goes to the PRO W7500 by a more substantial 24.3%, scoring 1174 against 889. That 2D win is notable, as it suggests the workstation card handles desktop and compositing workloads more efficiently.

Looking at the aggregate picture, the RX 6600 holds a higher average benchmark score at 19036, compared to 16415 for the PRO W7500. The RX 6600 also sits at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the PRO W7500 sits at the 59th. These percentile placements align with the head-to-head results: the RX 6600 is generally faster in 3D and graphics-heavy tests, while the PRO W7500 excels specifically in OpenCL compute and 2D tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations. The RX 6600 uses the Navi 23 chip built on RDNA 2.0, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. The PRO W7500 uses Navi 33, built on RDNA 3.0, and moves to TSMC's 6 nm node. The process shrink is accompanied by a transistor density increase from 46.7 million per square millimeter on the RX 6600 to 65.2 million on the PRO W7500. Even though the PRO W7500 has a smaller die at 204 mm² versus 237 mm², it packs more transistors: 13,300 million versus 11,060 million.

Both cards share identical shader and texture configurations. Each has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. Both also feature 28 ray tracing cores, and neither has dedicated tensor cores. The memory subsystems are also matched in capacity and bus width: 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit interface. However, the PRO W7500 runs its memory at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, yielding 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the RX 6600 runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed for 224.0 GB/s. That 32 GB/s bandwidth difference is a direct consequence of the higher memory clock.

Clock speeds tell a more complex story. The RX 6600 has a higher base clock at 1626 MHz versus 1500 MHz, and a much higher boost clock at 2491 MHz versus 1700 MHz. It also carries a game clock of 2044 MHz, which the PRO W7500 lacks entirely. Despite the lower clocks, the PRO W7500 achieves higher raw FP32 throughput: 12.19 TFLOPS versus 8.928 TFLOPS. This is likely due to architectural improvements in RDNA 3.0. The FP16 figures follow the same pattern, with the PRO W7500 at 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 17.86 TFLOPS (2:1) for the RX 6600.

The pixel and texture rates favor the RX 6600. It posts 159.4 GPixel/s and 279.0 GTexel/s, while the PRO W7500 manages 108.8 GPixel/s and 190.4 GTexel/s. This is consistent with the RX 6600's higher boost clock, as these rates scale directly with clock speed. The PRO W7500's lower rates explain its weaker DirectX and G3D scores despite the compute advantage.

Power and physical design differ sharply. The RX 6600 draws 132 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W and requires a single 8-pin power connector. The PRO W7500 draws only 70 W, needs no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The PRO W7500 is also a single-slot card at 20 mm wide, versus the dual-slot RX 6600 at 40 mm wide. The PRO W7500 is longer at 216 mm versus 190 mm for the RX 6600. Display outputs also differ: the RX 6600 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the PRO W7500 offers 4x DisplayPort 2.1.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6600 is the stronger choice for graphics-heavy workloads. It wins every Passmark DirectX test in the comparison, including DirectX 12 by 10.9% and DirectX 10 by 46.2%. Its Passmark G3D score is 12.9% higher, and its GPU Compute score is 10.9% higher. This makes it the better card for gaming, 3D rendering, and general GPU-accelerated tasks that rely on the traditional graphics pipeline. The higher boost clock of 2491 MHz versus 1700 MHz is a clear factor here.

The PRO W7500 is the compute specialist. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 58213 is more than double the RX 6600's 28850, a 50.4% gap. That is a massive difference in raw compute throughput, likely driven by the RDNA 3.0 architecture and its higher FP32 and FP16 figures. The PRO W7500 also wins in 2D tasks, taking Passmark G2D by 24.3%, which suggests it handles desktop environments, multi-monitor setups, and professional productivity applications more smoothly. Its Vulkan score is also slightly higher, though by only 1.5%.

The power envelope is another differentiator. The PRO W7500 draws 70 W compared to 132 W for the RX 6600, a difference that matters for compact workstations or systems with limited cooling. The single-slot design and lack of power connectors make it easier to integrate into dense professional builds. The RX 6600, by contrast, requires more power and a dual-slot footprint.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 has an average benchmark score of 19036, while the AMD Radeon PRO W7500 scores 16415.

Q: How large is the OpenCL gap between the two cards?

A: The PRO W7500 scores 58213 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 28850 for the RX 6600, placing it 50.4% ahead.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, but the PRO W7500 runs at 256.0 GB/s bandwidth while the RX 6600 runs at 224.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card performs better in DirectX 12?

A: The RX 6600 wins Passmark DirectX 12 by 10.9%, scoring 51 against 46 for the PRO W7500.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 6600 draws 132 W with a suggested PSU of 300 W and a single 8-pin connector. The PRO W7500 draws 70 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W and no power connectors.

Q: Which card has the higher FP32 throughput?

A: The PRO W7500 achieves 12.19 TFLOPS, while the RX 6600 reaches 8.928 TFLOPS.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct use cases. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is the better all-around graphics card. Its 12.9% lead in Passmark G3D, 46.2% lead in DirectX 10, and 10.9% lead in both DirectX 12 and GPU Compute make it the pick for gaming and general 3D acceleration. Its higher boost clock of 2491 MHz and faster pixel and texture rates support this interpretation. Users who prioritize rasterized graphics performance should choose the RX 6600.

The AMD Radeon PRO W7500 is the better compute card. Its 50.4% OpenCL advantage is the single most decisive metric in the entire comparison, and its 24.3% lead in 2D performance suggests it handles professional desktop workloads with ease. The lower 70 W power draw and single-slot design are practical advantages for workstation environments. Users who run OpenCL-based compute workloads, manage multiple displays, or need an efficient professional card should choose the PRO W7500.

The percentile rankings back this split. The RX 6600 sits at the 63rd percentile among all GPUs, while the PRO W7500 sits at the 59th. The RX 6600 is the higher-performing card overall, but the PRO W7500's compute strengths are undeniable. The choice comes down to workload, not raw score.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Process Node: 7 nm (RX 6600) versus 6 nm (PRO W7500)
• Transistors: 11,060 million versus 13,300 million
• Die Size: 237 mm² versus 204 mm²
• Transistor Density: 46.7M / mm² versus 65.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1626 MHz versus 1500 MHz
• Boost Clock: 2491 MHz versus 1700 MHz
• Game Clock: 2044 MHz versus not specified
• Memory Clock: 1750 MHz / 14 Gbps effective versus 2000 MHz / 16 Gbps effective
• Memory Bandwidth: 224.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s
• Pixel Rate: 159.4 GPixel/s versus 108.8 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 279.0 GTexel/s versus 190.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 8.928 TFLOPS versus 12.19 TFLOPS
• FP16: 17.86 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 24.37 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 132 W versus 70 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot versus Single-slot
• Power Connectors: 1x 8-pin versus None
• Suggested PSU: 300 W versus 250 W
• Display Outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus 4x DisplayPort 2.1
• Dimensions: 190 mm x 110 mm x 40 mm versus 216 mm x 115 mm x 20 mm
• Production Status: End-of-life versus Active
• Release Date: 2021-10-12 versus 2023-08-02
• Launch MSRP: 329 USD versus 429 USD
• Architecture: RDNA 2.0 versus RDNA 3.0
• Chip: Navi 23 versus Navi 33
• Codename: Not specified versus Hotpink Bonefish