OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon RX 6600 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£250VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):132 W

AMD Radeon RX 6600 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications, 46 expert and video reviews and 6 best-of lists to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon RX 6600
6.5/10

Overall score

Score
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 82% of models
Score components

40%

5.9

Technical score

25%

5.9

Reviews score

25%

8.3

List score

10%

5.9

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 82% of graphics cards
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

▼Worse than 62%
5.9

Technical score

Technical score
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 74% of models
Score components

44%

4.9

Performance

24%

3.5

Memory

12%

8.7

Power

11%

9.0

Features

5%

9.6

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

▼Worse than 74%
5.9

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 84% of models

5.9

Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.3

Average grade

20%

9.5

Popularity

Grades by review (46)
29 reviews: 14 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 17 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 84%
8.3

List score

List score
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (6)
List score: in 6 of 96 lists (6%)
★Better than 99%
  • amd-radeon-rx-6600
amd-radeon-rx-6600
Where to buy
    N/A~ £250
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon RX 6600

Based on 27 · 18

Reviewers praise its efficiency, compact size and solid gaming performance, but agree ray tracing and memory fall short.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Radeon RX 6600

Based on 162 owners sharing their experience in online comments

73%positive7%mixed20%negative

Owners praise its performance for the price and low power draw, while driver trouble and stuttering cause the biggest frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Some owners report black screens and crashes when installing or running AMD drivers, and games flickering or hardware acceleration failing in browsers.12
  • Owners report frame stutters and freezes in some games, especially while shaders load and in titles that need a lot of video memory.11
  • Some owners find frame rates lower than expected in demanding titles like Cyberpunk, Witcher or UE5 games, and some report it struggles in Fortnite or Warzone.10
  • Some owners report artifacts such as full-screen stripes after alt-tabbing, and one reports no display output after a factory reset in Adrenalin.5
  • Some owners see GPU temperatures around 70 to 75 Celsius, with a hotspot near 90 to 100 Celsius, and fans that get loud under load.4
  • Owners in some markets, such as Mexico, Argentina and the UK, say the card is still expensive compared with its performance.4

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon RX 6600

Technical score
Technical score
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 74% of models
Score components:

44%

4.9

Performance

24%

3.5

Memory

12%

8.7

Power

11%

9.0

Features

5%

9.6

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

5.9
Reviews score
5.9
List score
8.3
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

6.5

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

7.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
8,155 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 8,155 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 77.4% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
1,140 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 1,140 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 81.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
15,085 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 15,085 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 74.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
6,735 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 6,735 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 76.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
8.93 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 8.93 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 76.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 56.8% of graphics cards and equal to 25.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
224 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 224 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 83.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.5% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
14,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 14,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 69.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 11.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
132 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 132 W, which is lower than that of 78.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
132 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 132 W under peak load, which is lower than 80.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
450 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 450 W PSU, which is lower than that of 84% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.1% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
132 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 132 W, which is lower than that of 81.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
132 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
190x 110x 40 mm
Length
190 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 190 mm long, which is shorter than 91.9% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
110 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 110 mm tall, which is shorter than 88.8% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
710 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 710 g, which is lighter than 77.2% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Radeon RX 6600 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 92.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (190 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    190 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 38.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (132 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    132 W vs 215 W
  • 15 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (110 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    110 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 40% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (132 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    132 W vs 220 W
  • 9.2% higher list score
    List score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
    How we count it
    Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
    Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
    Lists with this model (6)
    List score: in 6 of 96 lists (6%)
    8.3 vs 7.6
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 9.2% higher list score
    List score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
    How we count it
    Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
    Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
    Lists with this model (6)
    List score: in 6 of 96 lists (6%)
    8.3 vs 7.6
  • 2.08x cheaper
    AMD Radeon RX 6600 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£250 vs £520).
    £250 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 8x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (32 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    32 MB vs 4 MB
  • 30.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (450 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    450 W vs 650 W
  • 38.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (132 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    132 W vs 215 W
  • 40% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (132 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    132 W vs 220 W
  • 75% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (3 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    3 W vs 12 W
  • 92.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (190 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    190 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 15 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (110 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    110 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 12 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (28 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    28 vs 40
  • 72 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (112 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    112 vs 184
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 50% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (224 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    224 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 18.1% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.9/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 84% of models

    5.9

    Mark 7.8 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.3

    Average grade

    20%

    9.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (46)
    29 reviews: 14 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 17 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.9 vs 7.2
  • 24.4% lower sentiment score
    5.9 vs 7.8
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 12 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (28 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    28 vs 40
  • 72 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (112 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    112 vs 184
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 12 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (28 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    28 vs 40
  • 60.5% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (8.9 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    8.93 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 26.2% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (279 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    279 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 15.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,626 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,626 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 87.5% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (1,140 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    1,140 points vs 9,148 points
  • 33.4% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (15,085 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    15,085 points vs 22,638 points
  • 44.8% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (8,155 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    8,155 points vs 14,779 points
  • 2 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2021 vs 2023).
    October 2021
    2021 vs 2023
  • 0.6% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,491 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,491 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 2,560 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,792 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,792 vs 4,352
  • 44.2% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (6,735 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    6,735 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 4 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (8 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    8 GB vs 12 GB
  • 50% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (224 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    224 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 26.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    14,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 40% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (7 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    7 nm vs 5 nm
  • 51.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (11,100 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    11,100 million vs 22,900 million
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • 16 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (53 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    53 °C vs 37 °C
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
11/12/2025
Hands-on review · 1080p game tests on a budget card
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6600 is a solid low-cost 1080p card for current games, though upscaling and lower settings are often needed.
8.0
TechArc
≈ estimated
25/05/2025
Benchmark review · game tests, overclocking and power draw
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6600 remains a solid 1080p value for non-ray-tracing gamers, though ray tracing and 1440p both struggle.
8.0
The Ineffable
≈ estimated
07/05/2024
Benchmark review · 1080p, 1440p and ray tracing tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6600 is still good for 1080p gaming in 2024, but ray tracing isn't playable.
6.0
Gear Seekers
≈ estimated
13/10/2021
Hands-on review · benchmarks, thermals and pricing
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6600 might be worth it at its launch price, but only given today's market.
4.0
Techtesters
≈ estimated
13/10/2021
Hands-on review · 15 game benchmarks and price analysis
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6600 isn't worth buying at current prices; the 6600 XT or waiting is the better choice.
5.0
Coreteks
≈ estimated
13/10/2021
Hands-on review · 1080p and 1440p benchmarks versus RTX 3060
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6600 is lacklustre at its price; it's only worth buying at MSRP, otherwise get the 6600 XT.
5.0
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
13/10/2021
Benchmark-only review · game, power and overclock data
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6600 is underwhelming overall, essentially a cut-down 6600 XT with little to get excited about.
Overview video
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
techspot.com
≈ estimated
13/10/2021
Benchmark review · 1080p and 1440p
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is a decent 1080p card, roughly RX 5700 level, but offers little progress and may age poorly on PCIe 3.0 systems.
7.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
13/10/2021
Benchmark review · 1080p gaming
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is a solid 1080p card that roughly matches the RX 5700, but it trails the RTX 3060 in most games and struggles with ray tracing.
7.0
pcworld.com
✓ explicit
13/10/2021
Lab test · 1080p gaming card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is a power-efficient card made for 1080p gaming with settings turned up, but it is weaker at 1440p and ray tracing.
8.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
13/10/2021
Hands-on test · Triple-fan design
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is a cool, quiet card for 1080p monitors, though it lacks the muscle for 1440p or 4K.
7.0
cnet.com
≈ estimated
13/10/2021
Lab test · Compact upgrade card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is a compact, quiet card for smooth 1080p gaming and photo editing, but it lags in ray tracing and on older Intel PCs.
4.0
engadget.com
≈ estimated
18/10/2021
Hands-on test · Long-term outlook
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is a solid 1080p card with a low power draw, but it is weak at ray tracing and may not keep up for years as games demand more.
7.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
10/11/2021
Benchmark review · Small-case fit
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is a compact, quiet 1080p card that matches the RTX 3060 in 3DMark, but ray tracing is not its strength.
8.5
cgmagonline.com
✓ explicit
19/11/2021
Benchmark review · Mini-PC fit
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is a compact card for 1080p gaming with settings maxed out, but it is not built for 4K.
6.0
custompc.com
≈ estimated
04/10/2023
Benchmark review · Power efficiency
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is a power-efficient 1080p card that handles Assassin's Creed Valhalla well, but struggles with ray tracing and high-refresh gaming.
8.0
reviewed.com
≈ estimated
14/10/2021
Benchmark review · 1080p gaming
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6600 runs most games smoothly at 1080p and suits fast shooters, but its ray tracing is too weak to rely on.
7.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
13/10/2021
Full review · 1080p gaming
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is a 1080p card with decent frame rates, but it trails the RTX 3060 and struggles with higher resolutions and ray tracing.
6.0
digitaltrends.com
✓ explicit
13/10/2021
Benchmark review · Content creation
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is a 1080p gaming card that holds above 60 fps in most games but trails the RTX 3060 in ray tracing and content creation.
6.0
lesnumeriques.com
✓ explicit
20/10/2021
Hands-on test · Power and noise
Verdict
The Gigabyte Radeon RX 6600 Eagle 8G is an efficient card for Full HD games without ray tracing, since its RT performance is too slow to be useful.
7.0
frandroid.com
✓ explicit
13/10/2021
Lab test · 1080p gaming
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is a quiet, efficient card built for 1080p, running most games well, though ray tracing is out of its reach.
8.0
tomshardware.fr
≈ estimated
13/10/2021
Lab test · Power efficiency
Verdict
The XFX Speedster RX 6600 is a frugal 1080p card that trails the RTX 3060 by about 2% and is weak at ray tracing.
8.0
phonandroid.com
≈ estimated
25/10/2021
Lab test · Compact 1080p card
Verdict
The XFX Speedster RX 6600 is a compact, lightweight card that runs 1080p games well, averaging 117 fps, but ray tracing is weak.
8.6
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
13/10/2021
Hands-on test · Design and cooling
Verdict
The PowerColor RX 6600 Fighter is a quiet, compact 1080p card with an exposed, plain circuit board, best for basic builds rather than glass-panel cases.
8.3
hardzone.es
✓ explicit
29/11/2021
Test · Gaming frame rates
Verdict
The Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 runs most tested games above 60 fps at 1080p on Ultra, but Metro Exodus and 1440p need lower settings.
9.2
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
13/10/2021
Review · Architecture overview
Verdict
The XFX Radeon RX 6600 SWFT 210 is a 1080p RDNA 2 card with high clock speeds and Smart Memory Access, but it has no USB-C port.
9.0
geektopia.es
≈ estimated
25/10/2021
Benchmark review · Sapphire Pulse
Verdict
The Sapphire Radeon RX 6600 Pulse handles 1080p well, but ray tracing pushes past its 8GB of memory and becomes unplayable at 1440p.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon RX 6600

  • Excellent value for 1080p gaming, often cited as the best 'bang-for-buck' budget GPU.
  • Highly power-efficient with low power draw, allowing it to run cool and quiet.
  • Compact physical size (approx. 19.5 cm) makes it compatible with small PC cases.
  • Strong performance in e-sports and AAA titles at 1080p, maintaining 60+ FPS on high settings.
  • Automatic Freesync support and a feature-rich Adrenalin software suite.

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon RX 6600

  • Poor ray tracing performance, often resulting in unplayable frame rates even at 1080p.
  • Limited to 8 PCIe lanes, which can significantly reduce performance on older PCIe 3.0 systems.
  • Performance struggles at 1440p and higher resolutions due to its 128-bit memory bus.
  • Lacks Nvidia-specific features like DLSS, relying instead on FSR which some users find less sharp.
  • Subpar performance for professional multimedia work and VR applications compared to competitors.

Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 6600 is an entry-level graphics card based on the RDNA 2 architecture, featuring 28 compute units, 1,792 stream processors, and a 132W TDP. It is equipped with 8GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a memory bandwidth of 224 GB/s supplemented by 32MB of AMD Infinity Cache. Main pros include exceptional power efficiency, cool and quiet operation, and strong 1080p gaming performance that often rivals more expensive competitors in rasterization. However, it suffers from a limited PCIe 4.0 x8 interface which can bottleneck performance on older PCIe 3.0 systems, and it generally exhibits weak hardware ray tracing capabilities and poor performance at resolutions above 1080p.

Compare AMD Radeon RX 6600 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon RX 6600 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found