Radeon Pro W6600 vs RX 5600 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 5600 XT with Radeon Pro W6600, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6600 outperforms RX 5600 XT by a moderate 12% 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 | 183 | 149 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 43.83 | 27.25 |
| Power efficiency | 16.32 | 27.43 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 21 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 5600 XT has 61% better value for money than Pro W6600.
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 | 2304 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1130 MHz | 2331 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | 2903 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 224.6 | 325.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.188 TFLOPS | 10.4 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 144 | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 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 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 | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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 | 106
−3.8%
| 110−120
+3.8%
|
| 1440p | 62
−4.8%
| 65−70
+4.8%
|
| 4K | 36
−11.1%
| 40−45
+11.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.63
+124%
| 5.90
−124%
|
| 1440p | 4.50
+122%
| 9.98
−122%
|
| 4K | 7.75
+109%
| 16.23
−109%
|
- RX 5600 XT has 124% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 5600 XT has 122% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 5600 XT has 109% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 320
−9.4%
|
350−400
+9.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 83
−8.4%
|
90−95
+8.4%
|
| God of War | 113
−6.2%
|
120−130
+6.2%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
−10.2%
|
130−140
+10.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 257
−8.9%
|
280−290
+8.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
−8.1%
|
80−85
+8.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 148
−8.1%
|
160−170
+8.1%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
−9.6%
|
160−170
+9.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 185
−8.1%
|
200−210
+8.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 104
−5.8%
|
110−120
+5.8%
|
| God of War | 94
−6.4%
|
100−105
+6.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
−7.7%
|
140−150
+7.7%
|
| Valorant | 275
−9.1%
|
300−310
+9.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
−10.2%
|
130−140
+10.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 135
−11.1%
|
150−160
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
−8.3%
|
300−310
+8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
−11.1%
|
70−75
+11.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 185
−8.1%
|
200−210
+8.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 135
−11.1%
|
150−160
+11.1%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
−9.6%
|
160−170
+9.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 173
−9.8%
|
190−200
+9.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 91
−9.9%
|
100−105
+9.9%
|
| God of War | 78
−9%
|
85−90
+9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 126
−11.1%
|
140−150
+11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 81
−11.1%
|
90−95
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
−7.7%
|
140−150
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140
−7.1%
|
150−160
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 272
−10.3%
|
300−310
+10.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
−10.2%
|
130−140
+10.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54
−11.1%
|
60−65
+11.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 168
−7.1%
|
180−190
+7.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 126
−11.1%
|
140−150
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 138
−8.7%
|
150−160
+8.7%
|
| God of War | 55
−9.1%
|
60−65
+9.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
−7.7%
|
140−150
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
−7.1%
|
90−95
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 148
−8.1%
|
160−170
+8.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 140−150
−9.6%
|
160−170
+9.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80
−6.3%
|
85−90
+6.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
−10.1%
|
250−260
+10.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 61
−6.6%
|
65−70
+6.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49
−2%
|
50−55
+2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−8.6%
|
190−200
+8.6%
|
| Valorant | 252
−11.1%
|
280−290
+11.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
−10.5%
|
95−100
+10.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
−6.7%
|
95−100
+6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
−10.1%
|
120−130
+10.1%
|
| God of War | 43
−4.7%
|
45−50
+4.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
−3.4%
|
60−65
+3.4%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 80−85
−8.4%
|
90−95
+8.4%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 63
−11.1%
|
70−75
+11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
−8.7%
|
50−55
+8.7%
|
| Valorant | 214
−7.5%
|
230−240
+7.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
−7.8%
|
55−60
+7.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 99
−11.1%
|
110−120
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
−11.1%
|
50−55
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70
−7.1%
|
75−80
+7.1%
|
| God of War | 27
−11.1%
|
30−33
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
−2.6%
|
40−45
+2.6%
|
This is how RX 5600 XT and Pro W6600 compete in popular games:
- Pro W6600 is 4% faster in 1080p
- Pro W6600 is 5% faster in 1440p
- Pro W6600 is 11% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.10 | 35.97 |
| Recency | 21 January 2020 | 8 June 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
Pro W6600 has a 12.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 50% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 5600 XT in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 5600 XT is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro W6600 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.
