Radeon Pro W6600M vs RX 6800M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 6800M with Radeon Pro W6600M, including specs and performance data.
RX 6800M outperforms Pro W6600M by a moderate 18% 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 | 230 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 16.64 | 22.79 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 22 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 31 May 2021 (4 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (4 years ago) |
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 | 2560 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 2116 MHz | 1224 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2390 MHz | 2034 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 17,200 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 145 Watt | 90 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 382.4 | 227.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 12.24 TFLOPS | 7.29 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 160 | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 384.0 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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
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 | 107
+18.9%
| 90−95
−18.9%
|
| 1440p | 71
+18.3%
| 60−65
−18.3%
|
| 4K | 43
+22.9%
| 35−40
−22.9%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+16.7%
|
150−160
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 123
+102%
|
60−65
−102%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 59
+1.7%
|
55−60
−1.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 143
+36.2%
|
100−110
−36.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+16.7%
|
150−160
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110
+80.3%
|
60−65
−80.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 106
+19.1%
|
85−90
−19.1%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+11.5%
|
130−140
−11.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+15.7%
|
100−110
−15.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 131
+52.3%
|
85−90
−52.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+18.3%
|
100−110
−18.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 57
−1.8%
|
55−60
+1.8%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+10.6%
|
180−190
−10.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 141
+34.3%
|
100−110
−34.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+16.7%
|
150−160
−16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+3%
|
260−270
−3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 102
+67.2%
|
60−65
−67.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 126
−2.4%
|
120−130
+2.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 102
+14.6%
|
85−90
−14.6%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+11.5%
|
130−140
−11.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+15.7%
|
100−110
−15.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 125
+45.3%
|
85−90
−45.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 112
+15.5%
|
95−100
−15.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 105
+69.4%
|
60−65
−69.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+18.3%
|
100−110
−18.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 55
−5.5%
|
55−60
+5.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 188
+121%
|
85−90
−121%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+10.6%
|
180−190
−10.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 139
+32.4%
|
100−110
−32.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 98
+60.7%
|
60−65
−60.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 115
−12.2%
|
120−130
+12.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95
+6.7%
|
85−90
−6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+15.7%
|
100−110
−15.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+18.3%
|
100−110
−18.3%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 53
−9.4%
|
55−60
+9.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 109
+28.2%
|
85−90
−28.2%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+10.6%
|
180−190
−10.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 140−150
+11.5%
|
130−140
−11.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+22.6%
|
60−65
−22.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+16.7%
|
190−200
−16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84
+64.7%
|
50−55
−64.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 59
+55.3%
|
35−40
−55.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+7.8%
|
210−220
−7.8%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130
+73.3%
|
75−80
−73.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 51
+82.1%
|
27−30
−82.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100
+56.3%
|
60−65
−56.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+20.8%
|
70−75
−20.8%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 50
+28.2%
|
35−40
−28.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+23.9%
|
45−50
−23.9%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 80−85
+22.4%
|
65−70
−22.4%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+25%
|
27−30
−25%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85
+60.4%
|
50−55
−60.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 38
+58.3%
|
24−27
−58.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
+42.9%
|
40−45
−42.9%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+19%
|
160−170
−19%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 82
+90.7%
|
40−45
−90.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+25%
|
27−30
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+91.7%
|
12−14
−91.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 95
+9.2%
|
85−90
−9.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+84.8%
|
30−35
−84.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+18.4%
|
45−50
−18.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+25.8%
|
30−35
−25.8%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 40
+81.8%
|
21−24
−81.8%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+25.8%
|
30−35
−25.8%
|
This is how RX 6800M and Pro W6600M compete in popular games:
- RX 6800M is 19% faster in 1080p
- RX 6800M is 18% faster in 1440p
- RX 6800M is 23% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6800M is 121% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro W6600M is 12% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6800M is ahead in 59 tests (91%)
- Pro W6600M is ahead in 5 tests (8%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.67 | 26.93 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 145 Watt | 90 Watt |
RX 6800M has a 17.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Pro W6600M, on the other hand, has 61.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 6800M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro W6600M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 6800M 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.
