Radeon Pro W6600M vs RX 6800
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 6800 with Radeon Pro W6600M, including specs and performance data.
RX 6800 outperforms Pro W6600M by an impressive 93% 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 | 65 | 238 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 41.91 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 16.23 | 23.34 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 21 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 28 October 2020 (5 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $579 | 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 | 3840 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1700 MHz | 1224 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2105 MHz | 2034 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 26,800 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 90 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 505.2 | 227.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 16.17 TFLOPS | 7.29 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 64 |
| TMUs | 240 | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 60 | 28 |
| L0 Cache | 960 KB | 448 KB |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | 128 MB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 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 | 16 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
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, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
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 | 1.2 | 1.3 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 175
+94.4%
| 90−95
−94.4%
|
| 1440p | 102
+104%
| 50−55
−104%
|
| 4K | 62
+107%
| 30−35
−107%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.31 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.68 | no data |
| 4K | 9.34 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 350
+123%
|
150−160
−123%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 135
+118%
|
60−65
−118%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 322
+374%
|
65−70
−374%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+48.1%
|
100−110
−48.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 349
+122%
|
150−160
−122%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 115
+85.5%
|
60−65
−85.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 197
+119%
|
90−95
−119%
|
| Fortnite | 230−240
+78.6%
|
130−140
−78.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+88.1%
|
100−110
−88.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 232
+164%
|
85−90
−164%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+56.8%
|
110−120
−56.8%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+60.4%
|
180−190
−60.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+48.1%
|
100−110
−48.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 259
+65%
|
150−160
−65%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+3.3%
|
270−280
−3.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 104
+67.7%
|
60−65
−67.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 145
+11.5%
|
130−140
−11.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 186
+107%
|
90−95
−107%
|
| Fortnite | 230−240
+78.6%
|
130−140
−78.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+88.1%
|
100−110
−88.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 210
+139%
|
85−90
−139%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 159
+60.6%
|
95−100
−60.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 147
+133%
|
60−65
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+56.8%
|
110−120
−56.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 269
+209%
|
85−90
−209%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+60.4%
|
180−190
−60.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+48.1%
|
100−110
−48.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 99
+59.7%
|
60−65
−59.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 128
−1.6%
|
130−140
+1.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 174
+93.3%
|
90−95
−93.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+88.1%
|
100−110
−88.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+56.8%
|
110−120
−56.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 152
+74.7%
|
85−90
−74.7%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+60.4%
|
180−190
−60.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 230−240
+78.6%
|
130−140
−78.6%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 175
+182%
|
60−65
−182%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 350−400
+98.5%
|
190−200
−98.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 125
+136%
|
50−55
−136%
|
| Metro Exodus | 89
+134%
|
35−40
−134%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+51.6%
|
210−220
−51.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+71.1%
|
75−80
−71.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
+155%
|
27−30
−155%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 163
+155%
|
60−65
−155%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+129%
|
70−75
−129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
+152%
|
45−50
−152%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+114%
|
65−70
−114%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 47
+62.1%
|
27−30
−62.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 132
+144%
|
50−55
−144%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+129%
|
24−27
−129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 99
+136%
|
40−45
−136%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+83.7%
|
160−170
−83.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+109%
|
40−45
−109%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+131%
|
27−30
−131%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+162%
|
12−14
−162%
|
| Dota 2 | 102
+15.9%
|
85−90
−15.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+176%
|
30−35
−176%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+141%
|
45−50
−141%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+194%
|
30−35
−194%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+144%
|
30−35
−144%
|
This is how RX 6800 and Pro W6600M compete in popular games:
- RX 6800 is 94% faster in 1080p
- RX 6800 is 104% faster in 1440p
- RX 6800 is 107% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Resident Evil 4 Remake, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 6800 is 374% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro W6600M is 2% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6800 performs better in 58 tests (97%)
- Pro W6600M performs better in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 52.69 | 27.28 |
| Recency | 28 October 2020 | 8 June 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 90 Watt |
RX 6800 has a 93% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Pro W6600M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, and 178% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 6800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro W6600M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 6800 is a desktop 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.
