Radeon Pro W6600M vs RX 550 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 550 Mobile with Radeon Pro W6600M, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6600M outperforms 550 Mobile by a whopping 324% 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 | 621 | 238 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.47 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.92 | 23.34 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Lexa | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 July 2017 (8 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 640 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1100 MHz | 1224 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1287 MHz | 2034 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 90 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 51.48 | 227.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.647 TFLOPS | 7.29 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 40 | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 448 KB |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 224.0 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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
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 | 15
−300%
| 60−65
+300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.33 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
−391%
|
150−160
+391%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
−520%
|
60−65
+520%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 14
−386%
|
65−70
+386%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−279%
|
100−110
+279%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 38
−313%
|
150−160
+313%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−377%
|
60−65
+377%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
−400%
|
90−95
+400%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−228%
|
130−140
+228%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−276%
|
100−110
+276%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 13
−577%
|
85−90
+577%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−363%
|
110−120
+363%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−153%
|
180−190
+153%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−279%
|
100−110
+279%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
−1327%
|
150−160
+1327%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−152%
|
270−280
+152%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−377%
|
60−65
+377%
|
| Dota 2 | 45
−189%
|
130−140
+189%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−500%
|
90−95
+500%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−228%
|
130−140
+228%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−276%
|
100−110
+276%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10
−780%
|
85−90
+780%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18
−450%
|
95−100
+450%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4
−1475%
|
60−65
+1475%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−363%
|
110−120
+363%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
−412%
|
85−90
+412%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−153%
|
180−190
+153%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−279%
|
100−110
+279%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−377%
|
60−65
+377%
|
| Dota 2 | 43
−202%
|
130−140
+202%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
−592%
|
90−95
+592%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−276%
|
100−110
+276%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−363%
|
110−120
+363%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
−263%
|
85−90
+263%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−153%
|
180−190
+153%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
−228%
|
130−140
+228%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−417%
|
60−65
+417%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−292%
|
190−200
+292%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−657%
|
50−55
+657%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−533%
|
35−40
+533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−349%
|
170−180
+349%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−200%
|
210−220
+200%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−591%
|
75−80
+591%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−480%
|
27−30
+480%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−392%
|
60−65
+392%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−387%
|
70−75
+387%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−411%
|
45−50
+411%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
−431%
|
65−70
+431%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−218%
|
50−55
+218%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−950%
|
40−45
+950%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−403%
|
160−170
+403%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−760%
|
40−45
+760%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−283%
|
85−90
+283%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−450%
|
30−35
+450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−390%
|
45−50
+390%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−417%
|
30−35
+417%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−433%
|
30−35
+433%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
This is how RX 550 Mobile and Pro W6600M compete in popular games:
- Pro W6600M is 300% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro W6600M is 2300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro W6600M performs better in 58 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.44 | 27.28 |
| Recency | 2 July 2017 | 8 June 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 90 Watt |
RX 550 Mobile has 80% lower power consumption.
Pro W6600M, on the other hand, has a 324% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W6600M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 550 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 550 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro W6600M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
