AMD Radeon PRO W7700 vs AMD Radeon RX 6650M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 than the AMD Radeon RX 6650M in OpenCL workloads?

A: The PRO W7700 scores 108,245 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the RX 6650M scores 65,800. That gives the PRO W7700 a 64.5% advantage, a substantial lead for compute-heavy tasks.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance, and by what margin?

A: The PRO W7700 wins decisively in Vulkan with a score of 129,706 versus 77,735 for the RX 6650M. This translates to a 66.9% performance delta, the largest gap recorded between the two in the head-to-head data.

Q: How do these two GPUs rank against all other GPUs in the database?

A: The PRO W7700 sits in the 95th percentile, while the RX 6650M ranks in the 91st percentile. Despite the RX 6650M being close in percentile, the actual average benchmark scores differ substantially: 118,976 for the PRO W7700 versus 71,768 for the RX 6650M.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU in the database rankings?

A: The PRO W7700's closest rivals are the NVIDIA GB10 (1.3% behind), NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation (1.6% behind), NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (4% behind), and NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile (4.4% behind). The RX 6650M's nearest competitors include the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (0.5% ahead), AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 (0.8% ahead), and AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (1.3% behind).

Q: How do the power requirements differ between the two cards?

A: The PRO W7700 carries a 190 W TDP with a suggested 450 W power supply and requires a single 8-pin power connector. The RX 6650M has a 120 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed, reflecting its mobile IGP form factor.

Q: What are the memory size and bandwidth differences?

A: The PRO W7700 offers 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6650M has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, so the PRO W7700 delivers more than double the memory bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon PRO W7700 for any workload where raw compute throughput matters. It wins both recorded benchmark tests, with margins of 64.5% in OpenCL and 66.9% in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 118,976 versus 71,768 for the RX 6650M places it in a different performance class entirely. The PRO W7700 also carries a 95th percentile ranking versus 91st for the RX 6650M, which suggests it belongs among the top-tier GPUs in the database.

For users who need a workstation-grade card for professional rendering, compute, or simulation tasks, the PRO W7700 is the clear choice based on the scores. It has double the memory (16 GB versus 8 GB), more than double the bandwidth, and a significantly larger transistor count (28,100 million versus 11,060 million). The RX 6650M, by contrast, is a mobile-oriented chip with an end-of-life production status, making it less suitable for new desktop builds. The RX 6650M is a capable performer for its class, as evidenced by its 91st percentile rank, competing closely with the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64. However, the performance gap to the PRO W7700 is simply too wide for any workload where compute is the primary bottleneck.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows that the PRO W7700 sweeps both tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the PRO W7700 scores 108,245 against the RX 6650M's 65,800. The resulting 64.5% delta indicates a massive lead for the professional card. This is not a marginal victory; it is a dominant one. The RX 6650M would need nearly two-thirds more performance to match the PRO W7700's output.

The Vulkan benchmark shows an even larger gap. The PRO W7700 records 129,706 points, while the RX 6650M manages 77,735. The 66.9% delta is the largest win recorded in the head-to-head set. This suggests that the PRO W7700's architecture scales better with modern graphics APIs, possibly due to its newer RDNA 3.0 design and higher compute throughput. The RX 6650M's RDNA 2.0 architecture, while respectable, falls behind in both OpenCL and Vulkan scenarios.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the PRO W7700 reaches 118,976 compared to 71,768 for the RX 6650M. That is a 65.8% advantage on average, consistent with the individual test results. When compared to their respective nearest rivals, the PRO W7700 is 1.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GB10 and 1.6% ahead of the RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, suggesting it holds its own against NVIDIA workstation parts. The RX 6650M, meanwhile, is effectively tied with the TITAN X Pascal (0.5% behind) and the Pro Vega 64 (0.8% behind), placing it in the upper mid-range tier of the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge significantly in nearly every hardware specification. The PRO W7700 is built on the Navi 32 chip, whereas the RX 6650M uses the Navi 23 chip. The PRO W7700 has 3,072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs, compared to the RX 6650M's 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Ray tracing cores also differ: the PRO W7700 has 48 RT cores versus 28 for the RX 6650M.

Clock speeds present an interesting contrast. The RX 6650M has a higher base clock at 2068 MHz versus 1900 MHz for the PRO W7700, but the PRO W7700 has a higher boost clock at 2600 MHz versus 2416 MHz. The RX 6650M also lists a game clock of 2222 MHz, a field the PRO W7700 does not report. Memory clocks differ as well, with the PRO W7700 running at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the RX 6650M.

The PRO W7700 is a dual-slot desktop card with a 241 mm length and 111 mm height, while the RX 6650M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no listed dimensions. Power delivery also differs: the PRO W7700 requires a 190W TDP and a 450 W PSU, while the RX 6650M draws 120W TDP with no connectors. The PRO W7700 uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, whereas the RX 6650M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 2.1 for the PRO W7700, while the RX 6650M depends on the portable device.

Architecture Differences

The PRO W7700 is built on RDNA 3.0 architecture with a 5 nm process node at TSMC, while the RX 6650M uses RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 7 nm node, also at TSMC. This node difference is significant: the PRO W7700 packs 28,100 million transistors into a 346 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 81.2 million per mm². The RX 6650M has 11,060 million transistors across a 237 mm² die, resulting in a density of 46.7 million per mm². The PRO W7700's smaller node and higher transistor density explain its superior throughput metrics.

The PRO W7700's compute rates reflect its architectural advantage. It delivers 31.95 TFLOPS FP32 and 63.90 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the RX 6650M delivers 8.659 TFLOPS FP32 and 17.32 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). That is roughly 3.7x the FP32 throughput and 3.7x the FP16 throughput for the PRO W7700, which aligns with the benchmark gap. The PRO W7700 also has higher pixel rate (249.6 GPixel/s versus 154.6 GPixel/s) and texture rate (499.2 GTexel/s versus 270.6 GTexel/s).

Both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so the API feature set is identical. The PRO W7700's architecture includes more ray tracing cores (48 versus 28), which likely contributes to its Vulkan lead. The RX 6650M's RDNA 2.0 architecture is a previous generation, and while it still supports modern APIs, its shader count and memory subsystem are substantially smaller.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7700 wins in every recorded benchmark, so the data clearly favors it for any workload represented by Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan. Its 64.5% OpenCL lead and 66.9% Vulkan lead position it as the dominant option for compute-heavy applications. The PRO W7700's 16 GB memory footprint and enormous bandwidth (576.0 GB/s) also make it a more capable option for large datasets or high-resolution textures, though the benchmark data does not directly test those scenarios.

The RX 6650M does have some advantages worth noting. Its lower TDP (120 W versus 190 W) makes it more power-efficient per watt, though the data does not provide a direct performance-per-watt comparison. Its mobile IGP form factor is an advantage in portable systems, where a discrete dual-slot card cannot fit. The RX 6650M also has a higher base clock (2068 MHz versus 1900 MHz), which could yield better performance in short, lightly threaded tasks that do not engage boost behavior. However, in sustained workloads, the PRO W7700's higher boost clock and larger compute resources take over.

For users who need a workstation-grade card for professional software, the PRO W7700 is the only sensible choice according to the data. Its nearest rivals are all high-end NVIDIA workstation parts, which places it in a premium category. For users who need a mobile GPU and do not require extreme compute performance, the 6650M still holds up well against its own rivals, sitting within 0.8% of the Radeon Pro Vega 64 and 0.5% of the TITAN X Pascal. The two GPUs are not direct competitors: they serve different form factors, power envelopes, and performance tiers. The data suggests that the PRO W7700 is a high-end desktop part while the RX 6650M is a capable but more modest mobile part.