Radeon Pro W6600 vs GeForce RTX 2080 Super
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 2080 Super with Radeon Pro W6600, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2080 Super outperforms Pro W6600 by a significant 27% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 57 | 105 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 31.58 | 73.48 |
| Power efficiency | 14.03 | 27.66 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 23 July 2019 (5 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Pro W6600 has 133% better value for money than RTX 2080 Super.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3072 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1650 MHz | 2331 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1815 MHz | 2903 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 348.5 | 325.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 11.15 TFLOPS | 10.4 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 192 | 112 |
| Tensor Cores | 384 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | 28 |
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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin |
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 | 1937 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 495.9 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 4x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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 | 140
+27.3%
| 110−120
−27.3%
|
| 1440p | 96
+28%
| 75−80
−28%
|
| 4K | 71
+29.1%
| 55−60
−29.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.99
+18.2%
| 5.90
−18.2%
|
| 1440p | 7.28
+18.8%
| 8.65
−18.8%
|
| 4K | 9.85
+19.9%
| 11.80
−19.9%
|
- RTX 2080 Super has 18% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 2080 Super has 19% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 2080 Super has 20% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 135
+35%
|
100−105
−35%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+32.9%
|
85−90
−32.9%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90
+28.6%
|
70−75
−28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 111
+30.6%
|
85−90
−30.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 48
+37.1%
|
35−40
−37.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 277
+31.9%
|
210−220
−31.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+28%
|
100−105
−28%
|
| Metro Exodus | 98
+30.7%
|
75−80
−30.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 122
+28.4%
|
95−100
−28.4%
|
| Valorant | 223
+31.2%
|
170−180
−31.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 191
+27.3%
|
150−160
−27.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 97
+29.3%
|
75−80
−29.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+36.7%
|
30−33
−36.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 121
+27.4%
|
95−100
−27.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 94
+34.3%
|
70−75
−34.3%
|
| Fortnite | 173
+33.1%
|
130−140
−33.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 225
+32.4%
|
170−180
−32.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+28%
|
100−105
−28%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 113
+32.9%
|
85−90
−32.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 87
+33.8%
|
65−70
−33.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 248
+30.5%
|
190−200
−30.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 77
+28.3%
|
60−65
−28.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+33.8%
|
130−140
−33.8%
|
| Valorant | 142
+29.1%
|
110−120
−29.1%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+26.8%
|
220−230
−26.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 79
+31.7%
|
60−65
−31.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 86
+32.3%
|
65−70
−32.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 80
+33.3%
|
60−65
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 129
+29%
|
100−105
−29%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 222
+30.6%
|
170−180
−30.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 189
+35%
|
140−150
−35%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 117
+30%
|
90−95
−30%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 161
+34.2%
|
120−130
−34.2%
|
| Valorant | 217
+27.6%
|
170−180
−27.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+30.7%
|
75−80
−30.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95−100
+30.7%
|
75−80
−30.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+34.6%
|
130−140
−34.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 51
+27.5%
|
40−45
−27.5%
|
| World of Tanks | 300−350
+30%
|
250−260
−30%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 79
+31.7%
|
60−65
−31.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55
+37.5%
|
40−45
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 53
+32.5%
|
40−45
−32.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160
+33.3%
|
120−130
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 141
+28.2%
|
110−120
−28.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+35.4%
|
65−70
−35.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+28.6%
|
70−75
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95−100
+32%
|
75−80
−32%
|
| Valorant | 163
+35.8%
|
120−130
−35.8%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+42.5%
|
40−45
−42.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 115
+27.8%
|
90−95
−27.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 115
+27.8%
|
90−95
−27.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 171
+31.5%
|
130−140
−31.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 33
+37.5%
|
24−27
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 115
+27.8%
|
90−95
−27.8%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 68
+36%
|
50−55
−36%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+42.5%
|
40−45
−42.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 116
+28.9%
|
90−95
−28.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 78
+30%
|
60−65
−30%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+35%
|
60−65
−35%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82
+36.7%
|
60−65
−36.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+30%
|
40−45
−30%
|
| Valorant | 87
+33.8%
|
65−70
−33.8%
|
This is how RTX 2080 Super and Pro W6600 compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Super is 27% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2080 Super is 28% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2080 Super is 29% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 50.86 | 40.11 |
| Recency | 23 July 2019 | 8 June 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 100 Watt |
RTX 2080 Super has a 26.8% higher aggregate performance score.
Pro W6600, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 71.4% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2080 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro W6600 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 2080 Super is a desktop card while Radeon Pro W6600 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
