Radeon Pro W6600X vs RX 5600 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 5600 XT with Radeon Pro W6600X, including specs and performance data.
5600 XT outperforms Pro W6600X by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 196 | 203 |
| Place by popularity | 73 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 36.76 | 18.32 |
| Power efficiency | 16.61 | 20.34 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | RDNA 2 (2021−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 21 January 2020 (6 years ago) | 3 August 2021 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 5600 XT has 101% better value for money than Pro W6600X.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1130 MHz | 2068 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | 2479 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 11.1 billion |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 224.6 | 317.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.188 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 144 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 32 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | Apple MPX |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 2x HDMI 2.1 |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.4 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 106
+6%
| 100−110 |
| 1440p | 62
+3.3%
| 60−65 |
| 4K | 36
+2.9%
| 35−40 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.63
+62.3%
| 6.99 |
| 1440p | 4.50
+61.4%
| 11.65 |
| 4K | 7.75
+61.2%
| 19.97 |
- RX 5600 XT has 62% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 5600 XT has 61% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 5600 XT has 61% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 147
+5%
|
140−150 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 320
+6.7%
|
300−310 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 83
+3.8%
|
80−85 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 115
+4.5%
|
110−120 |
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+8.2%
|
110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 257
+2.8%
|
250−260 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
+5.7%
|
70−75 |
| Far Cry 5 | 148
+5.7%
|
140−150 |
| Fortnite | 140−150
+5%
|
140−150 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 185
+2.8%
|
180−190 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+9.2%
|
120−130 |
| Valorant | 275
+5.8%
|
260−270 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 66
+10%
|
60−65 |
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+8.2%
|
110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 135
+3.8%
|
130−140 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+2.6%
|
270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
+5%
|
60−65 |
| Dota 2 | 185
+2.8%
|
180−190 |
| Far Cry 5 | 135
+3.8%
|
130−140 |
| Far Cry 6 | 102
+7.4%
|
95−100 |
| Fortnite | 140−150
+5%
|
140−150 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 173
+8.1%
|
160−170 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 126
+5%
|
120−130 |
| Metro Exodus | 81
+8%
|
75−80 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+9.2%
|
120−130 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140
+7.7%
|
130−140 |
| Valorant | 272
+4.6%
|
260−270 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+8.2%
|
110−120 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
+8%
|
50−55 |
| Dota 2 | 168
+5%
|
160−170 |
| Far Cry 5 | 126
+5%
|
120−130 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 138
+6.2%
|
130−140 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+9.2%
|
120−130 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
+5%
|
80−85 |
| Valorant | 148
+5.7%
|
140−150 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+5%
|
140−150 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80
+6.7%
|
75−80 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+3.6%
|
220−230 |
| Far Cry 6 | 60
+9.1%
|
55−60 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 61
+10.9%
|
55−60 |
| Metro Exodus | 49
+8.9%
|
45−50 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2.9%
|
170−180 |
| Valorant | 252
+5%
|
240−250 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+7.5%
|
80−85 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+11.1%
|
27−30 |
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+4.7%
|
85−90 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
+9%
|
100−105 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+5.5%
|
55−60 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
+3.8%
|
80−85 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
+5.6%
|
18−20 |
| Far Cry 6 | 13
+8.3%
|
12−14 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 63
+5%
|
60−65 |
| Metro Exodus | 30
+11.1%
|
27−30 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+2.2%
|
45−50 |
| Valorant | 214
+7%
|
200−210 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+13.3%
|
45−50 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35−40 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+20%
|
10−11 |
| Dota 2 | 99
+4.2%
|
95−100 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+12.5%
|
40−45 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70
+7.7%
|
65−70 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+14.3%
|
35−40 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+14.3%
|
35−40 |
This is how RX 5600 XT and Pro W6600X compete in popular games:
- RX 5600 XT is 6% faster in 1080p
- RX 5600 XT is 3% faster in 1440p
- RX 5600 XT is 3% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.99 | 31.34 |
| Recency | 21 January 2020 | 3 August 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 120 Watt |
RX 5600 XT has a 2% higher aggregate performance score.
Pro W6600X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 20% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 5600 XT and Radeon Pro W6600X.
Be aware that Radeon RX 5600 XT is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro W6600X is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
