Radeon Pro W6600 vs Pro W6800
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W6800 and Radeon Pro W6600, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro W6800 outperforms Pro W6600 by a significant 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 56 | 112 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 28.43 | 76.30 |
| Power efficiency | 14.12 | 27.49 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Navi 21 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 8 June 2021 (3 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,249 | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Pro W6600 has 168% better value for money than Pro W6800.
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 | 3840 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 2075 MHz | 2331 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2320 MHz | 2903 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 26,800 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 556.8 | 325.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 17.82 TFLOPS | 10.4 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 64 |
| TMUs | 240 | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 60 | 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 4.0 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 | 32 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
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 | 6x mini-DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.2 |
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.
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 | 137
+37%
| 100−110
−37%
|
| 1440p | 116
+28.9%
| 90−95
−28.9%
|
| 4K | 84
+29.2%
| 65−70
−29.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 16.42
−153%
| 6.49
+153%
|
| 1440p | 19.39
−169%
| 7.21
+169%
|
| 4K | 26.77
−168%
| 9.98
+168%
|
- Pro W6600 has 153% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Pro W6600 has 169% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Pro W6600 has 168% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+33.6%
|
110−120
−33.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+29.5%
|
200−210
−29.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+35.3%
|
85−90
−35.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+33.6%
|
110−120
−33.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+34.5%
|
110−120
−34.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+29.5%
|
200−210
−29.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+35.3%
|
85−90
−35.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70
+40%
|
50−55
−40%
|
| Fortnite | 200−210
+36.7%
|
150−160
−36.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+30.7%
|
140−150
−30.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+31.8%
|
110−120
−31.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+33.1%
|
130−140
−33.1%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+32%
|
200−210
−32%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 140−150
+33.6%
|
110−120
−33.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+34.5%
|
110−120
−34.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+29.5%
|
200−210
−29.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+32.4%
|
210−220
−32.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+35.3%
|
85−90
−35.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 99
+32%
|
75−80
−32%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
+30%
|
50−55
−30%
|
| Fortnite | 200−210
+36.7%
|
150−160
−36.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+30.7%
|
140−150
−30.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+31.8%
|
110−120
−31.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 121
+34.4%
|
90−95
−34.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 160
+33.3%
|
120−130
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+33.1%
|
130−140
−33.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 199
+32.7%
|
150−160
−32.7%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+32%
|
200−210
−32%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+34.5%
|
110−120
−34.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
+35.3%
|
85−90
−35.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
+32.3%
|
65−70
−32.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 62
+37.8%
|
45−50
−37.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+30.7%
|
140−150
−30.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+33.1%
|
130−140
−33.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 157
+30.8%
|
120−130
−30.8%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+32%
|
200−210
−32%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 200−210
+36.7%
|
150−160
−36.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+32%
|
100−105
−32%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+28.5%
|
260−270
−28.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 88
+35.4%
|
65−70
−35.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 171
+31.5%
|
130−140
−31.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+34.6%
|
130−140
−34.6%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+34.1%
|
220−230
−34.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+30%
|
90−95
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
+42.2%
|
45−50
−42.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+31.8%
|
110−120
−31.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95−100
+29.3%
|
75−80
−29.3%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 130−140
+31%
|
100−105
−31%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+33.3%
|
30−33
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 125
+31.6%
|
95−100
−31.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+37.5%
|
40−45
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 99
+32%
|
75−80
−32%
|
| Valorant | 280−290
+28.6%
|
220−230
−28.6%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+30%
|
60−65
−30%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+33.3%
|
21−24
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 94
+34.3%
|
70−75
−34.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+33.3%
|
45−50
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+32%
|
75−80
−32%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+36.4%
|
55−60
−36.4%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
+36%
|
50−55
−36%
|
This is how Pro W6800 and Pro W6600 compete in popular games:
- Pro W6800 is 37% faster in 1080p
- Pro W6800 is 29% faster in 1440p
- Pro W6800 is 29% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 44.35 | 34.53 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 100 Watt |
Pro W6800 has a 28.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Pro W6600, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W6800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro W6600 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
