Arc A550M vs Radeon Pro W6600M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W6600M with Arc A550M, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6600M outperforms Arc A550M by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 205 | 240 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 22.73 | 27.99 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Navi 23 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 8 June 2021 (3 years ago) | 2022 (3 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 | 1792 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1224 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2034 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,060 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 90 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 227.8 | 262.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.29 TFLOPS | 8.397 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 112 | 128 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 256 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 28 | 16 |
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 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 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 | 6.7 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+25.4%
|
60−65
−25.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+21.1%
|
130−140
−21.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+24%
|
50−55
−24%
|
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+25.4%
|
60−65
−25.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+15.2%
|
90−95
−15.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+21.1%
|
130−140
−21.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+24%
|
50−55
−24%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+19.5%
|
75−80
−19.5%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+14.8%
|
110−120
−14.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+19.6%
|
90−95
−19.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+21.9%
|
70−75
−21.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+24.7%
|
85−90
−24.7%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+13%
|
160−170
−13%
|
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+25.4%
|
60−65
−25.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+15.2%
|
90−95
−15.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+21.1%
|
130−140
−21.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+6.7%
|
250−260
−6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+24%
|
50−55
−24%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+8.3%
|
120−130
−8.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+19.5%
|
75−80
−19.5%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+14.8%
|
110−120
−14.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+19.6%
|
90−95
−19.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+21.9%
|
70−75
−21.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−105
+19%
|
80−85
−19%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+23.5%
|
50−55
−23.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+24.7%
|
85−90
−24.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85−90
+27.5%
|
65−70
−27.5%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+13%
|
160−170
−13%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+15.2%
|
90−95
−15.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+24%
|
50−55
−24%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+8.3%
|
120−130
−8.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+19.5%
|
75−80
−19.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+19.6%
|
90−95
−19.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+24.7%
|
85−90
−24.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85−90
+27.5%
|
65−70
−27.5%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+13%
|
160−170
−13%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+14.8%
|
110−120
−14.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+27.5%
|
50−55
−27.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+19.6%
|
160−170
−19.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+26.2%
|
40−45
−26.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+25.8%
|
30−35
−25.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0.6%
|
170−180
−0.6%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+10%
|
200−210
−10%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+18.8%
|
60−65
−18.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+26.1%
|
21−24
−26.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+22.6%
|
50−55
−22.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+25.4%
|
55−60
−25.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+25.6%
|
35−40
−25.6%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+25.5%
|
55−60
−25.5%
|
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+30.4%
|
21−24
−30.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+25.6%
|
40−45
−25.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+26.3%
|
18−20
−26.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+26.5%
|
30−35
−26.5%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+24.6%
|
130−140
−24.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+22.9%
|
35−40
−22.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+30.4%
|
21−24
−30.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+15.8%
|
75−80
−15.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+26.9%
|
24−27
−26.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+22%
|
40−45
−22%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+28%
|
24−27
−28%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro W6600M is 33% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro W6600M surpassed Arc A550M in all 63 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 25.79 | 21.19 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 90 Watt | 60 Watt |
Pro W6600M has a 21.7% higher aggregate performance score.
Arc A550M, on the other hand, has a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W6600M is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A550M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W6600M is a mobile workstation card while Arc A550M 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.
