Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
In our day-one review of the Radeon RX 6600 XT the new AMD GPU was ~10% faster than the RTX 3060 at 1080p and just 5% faster at 1440p. So it will be interesting to see how those margins compare to what we find when testing with 30 games, so let's find out... In Dirt 5, the RX 6600 XT is 16% faster than the RTX 3060, and in the original Metro Exodus, it has a 15% lead at 1080p. However, the AMD graphics card is basically tied with the RTX 3060 in Final Fantasy XIV and Horizon Zero Dawn – which isn't a good look with its price difference. Typically, Radeon GPUs perform well in the F1 series, but F1 2021 enables ray tracing by default at the highest presets and therefore we tested with the feature enabled. This hands the RTX 3060 a performance advantage, affording it a 6% performance advantage at 1080p and 10% at 1440p. Disabling ray tracing does favor the 6600 XT, but we feel we might as well test using the default configuration as that's how we normally test, and we're still looking at around 60 fps at 1440p.
Of the 12 games tested, we found that the 6600 XT was just 3% faster using PCIe 4.0 on average, or 5% faster if we include the Doom Eternal result. For the most part those with PCIe 3.0 systems should receive fairly similar performance to what's shown using PCIe 4.0, but in extreme cases the margin can be more significant and this is possibly something we could see more of over the next few years, so I can't say I'm particularly impressed with AMD's decision to potentially gimp the performance of the 6600 XT in this way. Cost Per Frame Yuka said:I would buy that argument if it wasn't for the fact both AMD and nVidia are reeking in the cash like fishermen on a school of a million fish. The Radeon RX 6600 XT specs have been widely leaked and guessed at, and it looks like many of those were fairly accurate. It will use a new Navi 23 GPU, which supports up to 32 CUs—and the RX 6600 XT will feature the fully enabled chip. That means 2048 streaming processors (aka, GPU cores), 32 ray accelerators, and 9.7 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. It will also feature a 128-bit memory interface with 8GB of GDDR6 16Gbps memory, good for 256GBps of bandwidth, augmented by 32MB of Infinity Cache. AMD also provided details on the die size, transistor count, and number of ROPs, which as expected are all quite a bit lower than on Navi 22. The TDP for the RX 6600 XT comes in at just 160W, requiring a single 8-pin power connector.Let's start our analysis by looking at cost per frame using the MSRP, which has become a suggested price that's no longer remotely accurate. Even if demand dried up overnight which isn't possible, but let's say it did, would we see a return to MSRP pricing then? We probably would for future releases, but I doubt that would be the case for current generation products. Today we're comparing the new Radeon RX 6600 XT head-to-head against the GeForce RTX 3060 in 30 games. This will give us a good idea of how these two GPUs compare, and also give us a second chance to sort of re-review the 6600 XT using real retail pricing, which is kind of nice considering the day-one review was based on assumptions made a week before the 6600 XT hit shelves, so pricing and availability were largely unknown. Next we have Call of Duty Warzone, where the 6600 XT was quite a bit faster than the RTX 3060, delivering 21% more frames at 1080p and 16% more at 1440p. A strong win for the Radeon GPU, though keep in mind it was also meant to cost 15% more based on the original MSRP.
In Outriders we're looking at very similar performance using either GPU again. The RX 6600 XT was a smidge faster at 1080p, while we're looking at identical performance at 1440p. The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT has 32 RDNA 2 compute units (CU), which means you're getting 2,048 Stream Processors (SP) and 32 ray accelerators – one per CU. That's quite a step down from the Radeon RX 6700 XT, which has 40 CUs, with 2,560 SPs. That's a 25% reduction in cores, and that pretty much correlates with the performance. We won't go over the data for all 50 games individually as that would take all day, instead we're going to take a close look at the results for about a dozen of them and then we'll take a look at how these two GPUs compare head-to-head across all games tested in a single graph. BenchmarksWhere the Radeon 6600 XT does shine is when looking at power consumption. In our test with Doom at 1440p, it used no more power than the older 5600 XT and yet it managed to deliver 23% more performance. The Nvidia encoder, often referred to as Nvenc, is also commonly pushed as a big plus for GeForce graphics cards, but we've found little difference between ShadowPlay and ReLive for capturing gameplay lately. AMD's solution appears to work very well now, so perhaps Nvenc is no longer a differentiating advantage anymore. It's AMD's own fault for pushing VRAM capacities with earlier RX 6000 series launches. When Nvidia launched the RTX 3080 with 10GB VRAM and then kept the RTX 3070 Ti, RTX 3070, and RTX 3060 Ti at 8GB, AMD effectively made a statement with the RX 6700 XT, RX 6800, 6800 XT, and RX 6900 XT that 8GB simply wasn't sufficient. Of course, that's not entirely true, but there are certainly games and settings that will now have issues on GPUs that 'only' have 8GB of memory — games promoted by AMD, not surprisingly.
Great Deal 
New Comment