Radeon Pro W6600X vs RX 5700
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 5700 with Radeon Pro W6600X, including specs and performance data.
RX 5700 outperforms Pro W6600X by a small 8% 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 | 171 | 203 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 29.45 | 18.33 |
| Power efficiency | 14.69 | 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 | 7 July 2019 (7 years ago) | 3 August 2021 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 5700 has 61% 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 | 1465 MHz | 2068 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1725 MHz | 2479 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 11.1 billion |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 248.4 | 317.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.949 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 | 4 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 | 268 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 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 | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |
| 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 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 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 | 6.8 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | 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 | 114
+14%
| 100−110 |
| 1440p | 69
+15%
| 60−65 |
| 4K | 43
+22.9%
| 35−40 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.06
+56.2%
| 6.99 |
| 1440p | 5.06
+56.6%
| 11.65 |
| 4K | 8.12
+59.4%
| 19.97 |
- RX 5700 has 56% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 5700 has 57% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 5700 has 59% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 159
+13.6%
|
140−150 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 344
+14.7%
|
300−310 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 84
+12%
|
75−80 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 131
+9.2%
|
120−130 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 121
+10%
|
110−120 |
| Battlefield 5 | 115
+15%
|
100−105 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 307
+9.6%
|
280−290 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75
+15.4%
|
65−70 |
| Far Cry 5 | 156
+11.4%
|
140−150 |
| Fortnite | 166
+10.7%
|
150−160 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 132
+10%
|
120−130 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 151
+16.2%
|
130−140 |
| Valorant | 294
+8.9%
|
270−280 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 70
+16.7%
|
60−65 |
| Battlefield 5 | 105
+10.5%
|
95−100 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 154
+10%
|
140−150 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+11.2%
|
250−260 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 67
+11.7%
|
60−65 |
| Dota 2 | 156
+11.4%
|
140−150 |
| Far Cry 5 | 144
+10.8%
|
130−140 |
| Fortnite | 140
+16.7%
|
120−130 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130
+8.3%
|
120−130 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 137
+14.2%
|
120−130 |
| Metro Exodus | 87
+8.8%
|
80−85 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 144
+10.8%
|
130−140 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 147
+13.1%
|
130−140 |
| Valorant | 291
+11.9%
|
260−270 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 97
+14.1%
|
85−90 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 58
+16%
|
50−55 |
| Dota 2 | 146
+12.3%
|
130−140 |
| Far Cry 5 | 135
+12.5%
|
120−130 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 118
+18%
|
100−105 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 139
+15.8%
|
120−130 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 91
+13.8%
|
80−85 |
| Valorant | 160
+14.3%
|
140−150 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 118
+18%
|
100−105 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 87
+8.8%
|
80−85 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+9.5%
|
220−230 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 72
+10.8%
|
65−70 |
| Metro Exodus | 51
+13.3%
|
45−50 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+9.4%
|
160−170 |
| Valorant | 277
+10.8%
|
250−260 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 81
+15.7%
|
70−75 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 36
+20%
|
30−33 |
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+9.4%
|
85−90 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 103
+8.4%
|
95−100 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+14.5%
|
55−60 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 77
+10%
|
70−75 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+16.7%
|
24−27 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 25
+19%
|
21−24 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 72
+10.8%
|
65−70 |
| Metro Exodus | 31
+14.8%
|
27−30 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+20%
|
40−45 |
| Valorant | 231
+10%
|
210−220 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 54
+20%
|
45−50 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+11.4%
|
35−40 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+25%
|
12−14 |
| Dota 2 | 100
+11.1%
|
90−95 |
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+17.5%
|
40−45 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70
+16.7%
|
60−65 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 59
+18%
|
50−55 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 39
+11.4%
|
35−40 |
This is how RX 5700 and Pro W6600X compete in popular games:
- RX 5700 is 14% faster in 1080p
- RX 5700 is 15% faster in 1440p
- RX 5700 is 23% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 33.95 | 31.34 |
| Recency | 7 July 2019 | 3 August 2021 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 120 Watt |
RX 5700 has a 8% higher aggregate performance score.
Pro W6600X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 33% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 5700 and Radeon Pro W6600X.
Be aware that Radeon RX 5700 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.
