AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs AMD Radeon RX 6650M Comparison

AMD Radeon PRO W7600 vs AMD Radeon RX 6650M

The data places the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 clearly ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6650M in both recorded compute benchmarks, with the desktop workstation card winning the OpenCL test by 23.9% and the Vulkan test by 19.2%. The PRO W7600 sits in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6650M sits in the 91st, and their average benchmark scores of 87108 and 71768 respectively show a gap that is consistent across the two workloads. The PRO W7600 is an active, single-slot desktop card built on the newer RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the RX 6650M is an end-of-life mobile IGP part based on RDNA 2.0, so the performance difference is accompanied by fundamental design and positioning differences.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7600 has an average benchmark score of 87108, which is 21.4% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 6650M's average of 71768.

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw compute performance?

A: The PRO W7600 delivers 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the RX 6650M delivers 8.659 TFLOPS. This makes the PRO W7600 more than twice as powerful in theoretical floating-point throughput.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The PRO W7600 has a memory bandwidth of 288.0 GB/s, while the RX 6650M has 224.0 GB/s. Both use 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The PRO W7600 achieves 156.2 GPixel/s, slightly ahead of the RX 6650M's 154.6 GPixel/s. The difference is just over 1%.

Q: Are both cards compatible with the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has tensor cores listed.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The PRO W7600 is listed as Active, while the RX 6650M is listed as End-of-life. The RX 6650M was released earlier, in January 2022, compared to August 2023 for the PRO W7600.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD's RDNA architecture. The PRO W7600 is built on RDNA 3.0 with the Navi 33 chip, while the RX 6650M uses RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 23 chip. This generational leap is reflected in the manufacturing process: the PRO W7600 uses a 6 nm node at TSMC, whereas the RX 6650M uses a 7 nm process from the same foundry. The smaller node allows the PRO W7600 to pack 13,300 million transistors into a 204 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 65.2M per mm². The RX 6650M has 11,060 million transistors spread across a larger 237 mm² die, giving it a lower density of 46.7M per mm².

The core configurations differ significantly. The PRO W7600 has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 raster operation pipelines, alongside 32 ray tracing cores. The RX 6650M has fewer of each: 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 ray tracing cores. The PRO W7600 also has higher clock speeds at the base level, running at 1720 MHz compared to 2068 MHz for the RX 6650M, but the boost clocks are nearly identical at 2440 MHz and 2416 MHz respectively. The RX 6650M has a listed game clock of 2222 MHz, which the PRO W7600 does not have.

Memory architecture is similar in capacity and bus width—both use 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit interface—but the PRO W7600 runs its memory at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), yielding 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6650M runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), producing 224.0 GB/s. The PRO W7600 also has a higher texture rate at 312.3 GTexel/s versus 270.6 GTexel/s for the RX 6650M. The codename for the PRO W7600 is "Hotpink Bonefish," while the RX 6650M has no codename listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark results available show a clear and consistent victory for the PRO W7600. In Geekbench OpenCL, the PRO W7600 scores 81528 against the RX 6650M's 65800, a delta of 23.9% in favor of the desktop card. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows somewhat but remains decisive: the PRO W7600 scores 92688 versus 77735, a 19.2% advantage. The PRO W7600 wins both head-to-head tests, giving it a 2-0 record in this comparison.

These scores align with the theoretical specifications. The FP32 throughput difference is stark—19.99 TFLOPS versus 8.659 TFLOPS—which explains why the OpenCL score gap is larger than the Vulkan gap. The PRO W7600's advantage in memory bandwidth (288.0 GB/s vs 224.0 GB/s) and texture rate (312.3 GTexel/s vs 270.6 GTexel/s) also contributes to its higher compute output. The pixel rate is nearly identical at 156.2 GPixel/s versus 154.6 GPixel/s, which suggests the ROP count of 64 on both cards keeps rasterization performance close, but this does little to close the overall gap.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The PRO W7600's average score of 87108 puts it just 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro GP100 (87445) and 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA CMP 40HX (85637). It trails the NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile (91134) by 4.4% and the NVIDIA RTX A4500 (91671) by 5%. The RX 6650M's average of 71768 places it 0.5% behind the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (72098) and 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 (72379), while it sits 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70829) and 2.2% behind the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition (73370). These deltas show that the PRO W7600 is competing in a higher performance tier overall.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Radeon PRO W7600 is the stronger GPU in every measured category. It wins both benchmarks by margins of roughly 19-24%, has more shading units, more ray tracing cores, higher memory bandwidth, and nearly double the FP32 throughput. The RX 6650M does not win a single recorded test, and its only advantages are a lower TDP of 120 W versus 130 W and a higher base clock of 2068 MHz versus 1720 MHz, though the latter is offset by similar boost clocks.

For a desktop workstation user, the PRO W7600 is the obvious choice. Its single-slot design, active production status, and DisplayPort 2.1 outputs make it a current, capable workstation card. Its average benchmark score places it in the 93rd percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are all NVIDIA workstation or mining cards with similar or slightly higher scores. The RX 6650M, by contrast, is an end-of-life mobile part with no standalone slot width, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. It targets laptops, not desktop builds, and its 91st percentile standing reflects a lower tier of performance.

The only scenario where the RX 6650M makes sense is if a mobile form factor is required and the 120 W TDP is a hard constraint. But even then, the performance gap is substantial: the PRO W7600 delivers 23.9% more OpenCL performance and 19.2% more Vulkan performance. Given that the PRO W7600 is the newer, faster, and more feature-complete product, the benchmark data supports choosing it whenever the desktop form factor is viable.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon PRO W7600 | AMD Radeon RX 6650M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 13,300 million | 11,060 million |

| Die Size | 204 mm² | 237 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 65.2M / mm² | 46.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1720 MHz | 2068 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2440 MHz | 2416 MHz |

| Game Clock | None | 2222 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 2048 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 128 | 112 |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | 28 |

| FP32 Performance | 19.99 TFLOPS | 8.659 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 39.98 TFLOPS (2:1) | 17.32 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 156.2 GPixel/s | 154.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 312.3 GTexel/s | 270.6 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 130 W | 120 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | None |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 241 mm x 115 mm | None listed |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2023-08-02 | 2022-01-03 |

| Predecessor | Radeon Pro Vega | Polaris Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | None |

Where Each One Wins

The PRO W7600 wins in every benchmark category recorded, so the practical question is where the RX 6650M retains any edge. The RX 6650M has a lower TDP at 120 W versus 130 W, which makes it a more power-efficient option in raw wattage terms, though the PRO W7600 delivers far more performance per watt given its 2.3x higher FP32 throughput. The RX 6650M also has a higher base clock of 2068 MHz, which could imply better performance in lightly threaded or clock-bound workloads, but the boost clocks are nearly equal, so this advantage is likely minimal in sustained loads.

For compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the PRO W7600 is the clear winner. Its 19.99 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 288.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth give it a substantial edge in any data-parallel or graphics-intensive application. The extra ray tracing cores (32 vs 28) also make it better suited for ray-traced rendering tasks, even if neither card has tensor cores for AI acceleration.

The RX 6650M's niche is strictly mobile applications. As an IGP with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent outputs, it is designed to be soldered into laptops where the 120 W TDP and compact footprint are essential. It wins on portability and power draw, but it loses on every measurable performance metric. The PRO W7600, with its single-slot design and 300 W suggested PSU, is built for desktop workstations where space and power are less constrained. For anyone choosing between these two on performance alone, the PRO W7600 is the only rational pick; the RX 6650M only makes sense when a mobile form factor is non-negotiable.