AMD Radeon PRO W6600 vs NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile Comparison

NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile and AMD Radeon PRO W6600 are both end-of-life professional mobile/workstation GPUs, but the benchmark data places them in different performance tiers. Across the two shared head-to-head tests, the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile wins both, with an average benchmark score of 113944 compared to the AMD Radeon PRO W6600’s 81995. The RTX A5500 Mobile sits at the 94th percentile of all GPUs, while the W6600 sits at the 92nd, so both are high-end parts, but the NVIDIA card is decisively faster in compute workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile scores 124287 against the AMD Radeon PRO W6600’s 73514. That is a 69.1% advantage for the NVIDIA part — a massive gap that reflects the fundamental differences in raw compute resources. The RTX A5500 Mobile delivers 22.27 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the W6600 manages 9.247 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card also has 7424 shading units versus 1792 on the AMD side, and 232 TMUs against 112. In OpenCL workloads that scale with shading units and texture throughput, the NVIDIA card is essentially in a different class.

The Vulkan head-to-head is closer but still favors NVIDIA decisively. The RTX A5500 Mobile scores 103601, while the Radeon PRO W6600 scores 78428, a 32.1% delta. Vulkan tends to be more efficient on RDNA architectures, and the W6600’s higher clock speeds — 2331 MHz base and 2580 MHz boost versus 975 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost on the NVIDIA card — help close some of the gap. However, the NVIDIA card’s sheer scale of execution resources (7424 shading units, 58 RT cores, 232 tensor cores) still carries it to a clear win. The W6600 has no tensor cores at all, which is relevant for any Vulkan compute path that leverages those units.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the RTX A5500 Mobile’s average benchmark score of 113944 puts it 2.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon PRO W7900 (110725) and 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB (114395). Meanwhile, the Radeon PRO W6600’s average of 81995 places it 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64X (80959) and 2.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 (79842). The RTX A5500 Mobile competes with much larger, higher-power workstation parts, while the W6600 sits closer to mid-range offerings.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile wins by 69.1%, scoring 124287 versus the AMD Radeon PRO W6600’s 73514 in Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: How much faster is the RTX A5500 Mobile in Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA card scores 103601 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 32.1% higher than the W6600’s 78428.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The RTX A5500 Mobile averages 113944 across its benchmarks, while the Radeon PRO W6600 averages 81995.

Q: Does the Radeon PRO W6600 have any benchmark win against the RTX A5500 Mobile?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests available (OpenCL and Vulkan), the RTX A5500 Mobile wins both; the data shows 2 wins for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: The RTX A5500 Mobile is in the 94th percentile, while the Radeon PRO W6600 is in the 92nd percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX A5500 Mobile has 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth from its 256-bit bus and 16 GB GDDR6 memory, compared to the W6600’s 224.0 GB/s from a 128-bit bus and 8 GB GDDR6.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile is the clear winner in raw compute throughput. Its 22.27 TFLOPS FP32 rating is more than double the W6600’s 9.247 TFLOPS. That translates directly into the 69.1% OpenCL advantage. The card also has 58 RT cores and 232 tensor cores, making it suitable for ray-traced rendering and AI-accelerated workloads. The W6600 has 28 RT cores but no tensor cores, so any machine-learning inference or training task that relies on tensor operations will favor the NVIDIA part heavily. The 16 GB memory capacity versus 8 GB also gives the RTX A5500 Mobile room for larger datasets, and its 512.0 GB/s bandwidth is more than double the W6600’s 224.0 GB/s.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 does have some structural advantages, though they do not show up as benchmark wins. It runs at much higher clock speeds — 2331 MHz base and 2580 MHz boost versus 975 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost — which helps close the Vulkan gap to 32.1% despite having far fewer shading units. Its FP16 performance is 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), which is proportionally stronger than its FP32 output, whereas the RTX A5500 Mobile delivers FP16 at 22.27 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio). For workloads that mix FP16 and FP32, the AMD card’s FP16 path is more efficient relative to its FP32 capability. The W6600 also has a higher pixel rate at 165.1 GPixel/s versus 144.0 GPixel/s on the NVIDIA card, which could benefit certain rasterization-heavy tasks, though its texture rate is lower at 289.0 GTexel/s versus 348.0 GTexel/s.

For use-case selection, the data points to the RTX A5500 Mobile for compute-heavy professional tasks: OpenCL rendering, Vulkan compute, and anything touching tensor cores. The W6600 is more appropriate for scenarios where power draw and physical size matter, since it is a single-slot 100 W card with a 300 W suggested PSU, while the RTX A5500 Mobile is rated at 165 W with no listed slot width or power connector details.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every core specification. The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile uses the GA103 chip with 22,000 million transistors on an 8 nm Samsung process, while the AMD Radeon PRO W6600 uses the Navi 23 chip with 11,060 million transistors on a 7 nm TSMC process. Die size is 496 mm² for NVIDIA versus 237 mm² for AMD, though transistor density is similar at 44.4M per mm² versus 46.7M per mm².

Memory is another major split: the RTX A5500 Mobile has 16 GB GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth and 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) memory clock; the W6600 has 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth and 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) memory clock. The RTX A5500 Mobile has 7424 shading units, 232 TMUs, and 96 ROPs; the W6600 has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. RT core counts are 58 versus 28, and the NVIDIA card has 232 tensor cores while the AMD card has none.

Clock speeds favor AMD: 2331 MHz base and 2580 MHz boost versus 975 MHz base and 1500 MHz boost. Pixel rate is slightly higher on the W6600 (165.1 GPixel/s versus 144.0 GPixel/s), but texture rate is higher on the RTX A5500 Mobile (348.0 GTexel/s versus 289.0 GTexel/s). FP32 output is 22.27 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 9.247 TFLOPS for AMD; FP16 is 22.27 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 18.49 TFLOPS (2:1). Power draw is 165 W for the RTX A5500 Mobile versus 100 W for the W6600. The W6600 is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU; the RTX A5500 Mobile lists no power connector and no slot width. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 for NVIDIA and PCIe 4.0 x8 for AMD. Display outputs are “portable device dependent” on the NVIDIA card versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the AMD card. The NVIDIA card measures no listed dimensions, while the W6600 is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile is built on the Ampere architecture (chip GA103) from the Ampere-MW generation, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. It ships with 22,000 million transistors across a 496 mm² die. The architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It includes 58 RT cores for ray tracing and 232 tensor cores for AI acceleration. FP32 and FP16 both run at 22.27 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning the card does not sacrifice FP16 throughput for FP32 work. Its predecessor is Quadro Turing-M, and its successor is Ada-MW.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture (chip Navi 23) from the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi II Series) generation, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process. It packs 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. It has 28 RT cores but no tensor core equivalent. FP32 runs at 9.247 TFLOPS, while FP16 runs at 18.49 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning FP16 work is roughly double the FP32 rate. Its predecessor is Radeon Pro Vega, and there is no listed successor in the data.

The architectural philosophies are clear: NVIDIA’s Ampere is designed for maximum compute density with dedicated tensor hardware and 1:1 FP16/FP32, while AMD’s RDNA 2.0 focuses on higher clock speeds, lower power, and a smaller die with 2:1 FP16 throughput. The RTX A5500 Mobile also has a wider memory bus (256-bit versus 128-bit) and more than double the bandwidth, which is critical for large compute datasets.

The Verdict

Based strictly on benchmark data, the NVIDIA RTX A5500 Mobile is the superior performer. It wins both head-to-head tests — OpenCL by 69.1% and Vulkan by 32.1% — and its average benchmark score of 113944 is 39% higher than the Radeon PRO W6600’s 81995. The RTX A5500 Mobile also ranks higher at the 94th percentile versus the 92nd. For any professional workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the NVIDIA card is the clear choice.

The AMD Radeon PRO W6600 is not without merit, but its strengths are not reflected in benchmark wins. It consumes less power (100 W versus 165 W), is a single-slot design, and has a smaller die (237 mm² versus 496 mm²). Its higher base and boost clocks (2331 MHz and 2580 MHz versus 975 MHz and 1500 MHz) and higher pixel rate (165.1 GPixel/s versus 144.0 GPixel/s) may benefit specific raster-heavy tasks, and its 2:1 FP16 ratio means it can process FP16 at 18.49 TFLOPS, which is proportionally strong for its FP32 output. However, it offers only 8 GB of memory versus 16 GB, half the bandwidth, and no tensor cores.

Who should pick which? The data suggests the RTX A5500 Mobile for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance, large memory capacity, or AI/ray-tracing features. The W6600 is a better fit for scenarios where power draw, physical footprint, and lower system requirements (300 W suggested PSU versus a 165 W TDP with no listed PSU) are primary constraints, and where the workload does not demand the RTX A5500 Mobile’s compute headroom. The verdict is straightforward: if performance is the only criterion, the RTX A5500 Mobile wins outright; if power efficiency and compactness matter more, the W6600 has a role, but it cannot match the NVIDIA card’s benchmark results.