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

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£540VRAM:8 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):160 W

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 11 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT
7.0/10

Overall score

Score
7.0/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
Score components

40%

6.1

Technical score

25%

8.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

6.1

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 65% of graphics cards
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

7.7

Price

â–¼Worse than 68%
6.1

Technical score

Technical score
6.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Score components

44%

5.5

Performance

24%

3.8

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

9.0

Features

5%

8.7

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 70%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 77% of models

80%

8.3

Average grade

20%

8.6

Popularity

Grades by review (11)
6 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 5 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.
â–²Better than 77%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 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 (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6600-xt
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
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 Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT

Based on 6 · 5

Reviewers love how quiet and efficient it is, but are split on performance and price, and miss extra features.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT

Based on 210 owners sharing their experience in online comments

66%positive14%mixed20%negative

Owners praise strong gaming performance and efficient power use, while tuning glitches, resets, and high hotspot temperatures frustrate some.

What owners dislike

  • Undervolting or overclocking often causes crashes, black screens, artifacts or driver resets, even at settings that other owners run stably.14
  • Overclock and undervolt settings often revert to default after a restart or reboot, so owners must reapply them each time.11
  • Owners report the power limit slider stops at 0% or only allows small increases such as 4%, so the power limit cannot be raised as guides suggest.10
  • Hotspot temperatures can reach 90 to 110°C under load, even when the regular core temperature is much lower.9
  • Some owners see stutter and frame-time spikes, and one lowered the minimum GPU clock to fix it.6
  • Some owners see random black screens and driver crashes during play, and one reports crashes after waking the PC from sleep.4
  • Overclocking often adds very little performance, with some owners seeing only about 0.3 fps gained for extra power draw.4

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT

Technical score
Technical score
6.1/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Score components:

44%

5.5

Performance

24%

3.8

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

9.0

Features

5%

8.7

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

6.1
Reviews score
8.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components:

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

7.7

Price

7.2
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
9,426 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 9,426 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 73.5% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
4,378 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 4,378 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 74.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
19,114 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 19,114 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 63.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
7,422 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 7,422 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 74.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
10.62 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 10.62 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 72.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% 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
256 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 256 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 80% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
16,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 16,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 63.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
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
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)
160 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 160 W, which is lower than that of 67.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.8% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
160 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 160 W under peak load, which is lower than 71.4% of graphics cards and equal to 3.8% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
500 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 500 W PSU, which is lower than that of 75.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
160 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 160 W, which is lower than that of 71.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.7% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
160 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
240x 119.85x 44.75 mm
Length
240 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 240 mm long, which is shorter than 76.2% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.5% of graphics cards.
Height
119.85 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 119.85 mm tall, which is shorter than 64.7% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2.2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2.2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 50.9% of graphics cards and equal in width to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Weight
606 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 606 g, which is lighter than 86.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 3.5% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,593 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,593 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 77% of models

    80%

    8.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (11)
    6 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 5 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.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 25.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (160 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    160 W vs 215 W
  • 42.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (240 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    240 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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
  • 27.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (160 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    160 W vs 220 W
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 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
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 77% of models

    80%

    8.3

    Average grade

    20%

    8.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (11)
    6 reviews: 4 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 5 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.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 3.5% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,593 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,593 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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
  • 4.2% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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
  • 3.55x higher HDMI bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher HDMI bandwidth than the average graphics card (42.6 Gbps vs 12 Gbps). The average graphics card has HDMI bandwidth of 12 Gbps.
    42.6 Gbps vs 12 Gbps
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 25.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (160 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    160 W vs 215 W
  • 27.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (160 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    160 W vs 220 W
  • 7.5 dB quieter under load
    This graphics card has a lower load noise level than the average graphics card (27.9 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    27.9 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 66.7% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (4 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    4 W vs 12 W
  • 42.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (240 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    240 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 5.15 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (119.9 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    119.85 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.3 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2.2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2.2 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.
  • 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
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • 42.9% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (256 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    256 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 21.8% lower sentiment score
    6.1 vs 7.8
  • 2.8% worse value for money
    Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT has worse value for money than the average graphics card (7.22 vs 7.4).
    7.22 vs 7.41
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • 56 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (128 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    128 vs 184
  • 8 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (32 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    32 vs 40
  • 8 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (32 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    32 vs 40
  • 53% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (10.6 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    10.62 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 12.3% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (331.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    331.4 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 36.2% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (9,426 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    9,426 points vs 14,779 points
  • 2 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2021 vs 2023).
    August 2021
    2021 vs 2023
  • 52.1% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (4,378 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    4,378 points vs 9,148 points
  • 15.6% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (19,114 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    19,114 points vs 22,638 points
  • 98.3% lower INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a lower INT8 performance than the average graphics card (4.2 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    4.15 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 38.5% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (7,422 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    7,422 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 2,304 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (2048 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    2,048 vs 4,352
  • 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
  • 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
  • 42.9% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (256 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    256 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 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
  • 15.8% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (16,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    16,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • 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
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • 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.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 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
  • 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
  • 5 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (42 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    42 °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
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
11/08/2021
Hands-on review · thermals, noise, overclocking and pricing
Verdict
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT is extremely capable and quiet, but it is priced too high against the RTX 3060 Ti; buy only near MSRP.
9.0
Level1Techs
≈ estimated
11/08/2021
Hands-on review · noise, cooling and overclocking
Verdict
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT is a quiet, well built card worth buying when it goes on sale.
9.0
Machines & More
≈ estimated
01/10/2021
Comparison review · Pulse vs Nitro+ performance and value
Verdict
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT matches the Nitro+ in performance and is a good buy at current prices.
Brand video
Not graded
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
11/08/2021
Review intro · Quiet 1080p card
Verdict
Sapphire Radeon RX 6600 XT Pulse OC is a quiet 1080p card that stays close to AMD's design, with only a token factory overclock.
7.5
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
11/08/2021
Hands-on review · Build and cooling
Verdict
Sapphire RX 6600 XT Pulse is a no-frills card with solid build and strong cooling, but its memory bandwidth trails the older RX 5600 XT.
8.0
pcper.com
≈ estimated
11/08/2021
Lab test · Compact 1080p card
Verdict
Sapphire Pulse RX 6600 XT is a light, compact card that runs slightly faster than the MSI Gaming X at 1080p, but stock is hard to find.
7.5
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
25/08/2021
Lab review · Reference-speed card
Verdict
Sapphire Radeon RX 6600 XT Pulse runs cool and quiet at AMD's speeds with few extras, though stock is hard to find.
9.0
linuxlookup.com
≈ estimated
30/09/2021
Linux test · 1080p gaming
Verdict
Sapphire Pulse RX 6600 XT OC is a strong 1080p card on Linux, but TriXX tuning software is missing there.
8.0
pcworld.com
✓ explicit
13/08/2021
Benchmark review · TriXX Boost software
Verdict
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT is a plain, cool, quiet card whose TriXX Boost software delivers big frame-rate gains, though ray tracing lags behind Nvidia.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT

  • Excellent 1080p gaming performance, often beating the RTX 3060 in rasterised titles
  • Highly power efficient with a very low idle power draw (approx. 4W)
  • Compact dual-fan design suitable for smaller PC cases
  • Runs cool and quiet even under heavy load due to solid thermal management
  • Includes useful 'Trixx Boost' software for upscaling and performance gains
  • Metal backplate adds to overall build quality and heat dissipation

What customers don't like about Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT

  • Mediocre ray-tracing performance compared to Nvidia competitors
  • Performance drops significantly when stepping up to 1440p or 4K resolutions
  • Lacks premium extras like dual-BIOS or RGB lighting found on the Nitro+ model
  • PCIe 4.0 x8 interface can cause minor performance drops on older PCIe 3.0 motherboards
  • Drivers have been reported as occasionally unstable, specifically regarding power-saving modes
  • Initial market pricing was considered high for a 1080p-targeted card

Verdict

The Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT is a compact graphics card optimized for 1080p gaming, featuring 8GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 32MB of AMD Infinity Cache. Built on the 7nm RDNA 2 architecture, it offers 2048 stream processors, a boost clock up to 2593 MHz, and a game clock of 2382 MHz, all while maintaining a relatively low 170W board power. Key pros include its highly efficient Dual-X Cooling Technology for quiet operation, a durable metal backplate, and support for modern features like hardware ray tracing and FidelityFX Super Resolution. However, notable cons include its limited 8-lane PCIe 4.0 interface which may bottleneck performance on older PCIe 3.0 systems, lackluster ray tracing capabilities compared to higher-end models, and a narrower memory bus that restricts performance at resolutions above 1080p.

Compare Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT 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 Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6600 XT and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found