OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v1.0: technical specifications plus authentic consumer ratings, with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v1.0

XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core Review | 118 Data compared

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

XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core Review: Compare 118 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core
6.3/10

Overall score

Score
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the graphics card's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best graphics cards on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Score components

90%

5.9

Technical score

10%

9.6

User score

â–¼Worse than 70% of graphics cards
7.1

Value for money

Value for money
7.1/ 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 58% of models
Score components

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

â–¼Worse than 58%
5.9

Technical score

Technical score
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components

44%

5.0

Performance

24%

3.5

Memory

12%

8.9

Power & Cooling

11%

9.0

Platform & Features

5%

8.5

Design

4%

9.0

Connectivity & Media

â–¼Worse than 75%
9.6

User score

User score
9.6/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

70%

9.4

User ratings

30%

10

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
★Better than 99%
  • xfx-speedster-swft-210-radeon-rx-6600-core
  • xfx-speedster-swft-210-radeon-rx-6600-core
  • xfx-speedster-swft-210-radeon-rx-6600-core
  • xfx-speedster-swft-210-radeon-rx-6600-core
  • xfx-speedster-swft-210-radeon-rx-6600-core
  • xfx-speedster-swft-210-radeon-rx-6600-core
xfx-speedster-swft-210-radeon-rx-6600-core
xfx-speedster-swft-210-radeon-rx-6600-core
xfx-speedster-swft-210-radeon-rx-6600-core
xfx-speedster-swft-210-radeon-rx-6600-core
xfx-speedster-swft-210-radeon-rx-6600-core
xfx-speedster-swft-210-radeon-rx-6600-core
Best prices
*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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core

Technical score
Technical score
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components:

44%

5.0

Performance

24%

3.5

Memory

12%

8.9

Power & Cooling

11%

9.0

Platform & Features

5%

8.5

Design

4%

9.0

Connectivity & Media

5.9
User score
User score
9.6/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

70%

9.4

User ratings

30%

10

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
9.6
Popularity
Popularity
10/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you prefer a graphics card that has already been chosen and reviewed by many other users.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 92% of models
Popularity:
XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core has a popularity score of 10 points, which is higher than that of 91.9% of products in this category.
10
Value for money
Value for money
7.1/ 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 58% of models
Score components:

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

9.2

Price

7.1
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
8,302 points
Market range: <4k points – >34k points
This graphics card scores 8,302 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 76.9% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
3,800 points
Market range: <0 points – >25k points
This graphics card scores 3,800 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
15,131 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 15,131 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 74.6% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
6,512 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 6,512 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 77.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Floating-point performance
8.93 TFLOPS
Market range: <4.38 TFLOPS – >57.42 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 8.93 TFLOPS floating-point performance, which is lower than that of 77.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
8 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >24 GB
This graphics card has 8 GB of VRAM, which is less than 57.5% of graphics cards and equal to 25.1% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
GDDR version
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 15.9% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <64 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 69.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26% 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 83.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.3% of graphics cards and equal to 52.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 76.7% of graphics cards and equal to 22.2% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.6% of graphics cards and equal to 77.4% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.7% of graphics cards and equal to 79.3% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 1.9% of graphics cards and equal to 98.1% 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 8.3% of graphics cards and equal to 88.9% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 91% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21% of graphics cards and equal to 76.8% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.6% of graphics cards and equal to 13.3% 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% of graphics cards and equal to 22.7% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
132 W
Market range: <60 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 132 W, which is lower than that of 78.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
132 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card draws 132 W under peak load, which is lower than 80.2% 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 84.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
132 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 132 W, which is lower than that of 81.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
132 W
Show more
Size
24.1x 13.1x 4.1 mm
Length
241 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >350 mm
This graphics card is 241 mm long, which is shorter than 75% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.7% of graphics cards.
Height
131 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 131 mm tall, which is taller than 61.8% of graphics cards and equal in height to 2% 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 53.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 42.5% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,000 g
Market range: <500 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,000 g, which is lighter than 51.5% of graphics cards and equal in weight to 3.1% of graphics cards.
Show more

XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryPlatform & FeaturesConnectivity & MediaPower & CoolingDesign
  • 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
  • 44 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (241 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    241 mm vs 285 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
  • 19.8% higher user score
    User score
    9.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
    When it matters
    When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core
    the average graphics card
    XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core has a higher user score than the average graphics card (9.58 vs 8.000).
    9.58 vs 8
  • 41.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (132 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    132 W vs 225 W
  • 2.37x more popular
    XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core is more popular than the average graphics card (10 vs 4.2).
    10 vs 4.22
  • Better FP64 ratio
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 19.8% higher user score
    User score
    9.6/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
    When it matters
    When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core
    the average graphics card
    XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core has a higher user score than the average graphics card (9.58 vs 8.000).
    9.58 vs 8
  • 2.37x more popular
    XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core is more popular than the average graphics card (10 vs 4.2).
    10 vs 4.22
  • 2.12x cheaper
    XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core is cheaper than the average graphics card (£250 vs £530).
    £250 vs £530
  • Better FP64 ratio
    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
  • 41.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (132 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    132 W vs 225 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
  • 44 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (241 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    241 mm vs 285 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
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
    128 bit vs 256 bit
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 116 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (28 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    28 vs 144
  • 60.4% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (8.9 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS.
    8.93 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS
  • 26.8% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (279 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 381.2 GTexel/s.
    279 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s
  • 15.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1626 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,626 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 33.2% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (15131 points vs 22653 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22653 points.
    15,131 points vs 22,653 points
  • 43.4% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (8302 points vs 14678.5 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14678.5 points.
    8,302 points vs 14,678.5 points
  • 58.5% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (3800 points vs 9166 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9166 points.
    3,800 points vs 9,166 points
  • 0.6% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2491 MHz vs 2505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2505 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
  • 61.1% lower compute throughput
    This graphics card has a lower compute throughput than the average graphics card (8.9 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has compute throughput of 22.98 TFLOPS.
    8.93 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS
  • 46.1% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (6512 points vs 12074 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12074 points.
    6,512 points vs 12,074 points
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
    128 bit vs 256 bit
  • 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
  • 26.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (14000 MHz vs 19000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19000 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
  • 40% larger process node
    This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (7 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
    7 nm vs 5 nm
  • Older encoder generation
    This graphics card uses an older encoder generation than the average graphics card (3 vs 8). The average graphics card uses encoder generation 8.
    3.0 vs 8
  • 2 older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2021 vs 2023).
    October 2021
    2,021 vs 2,023
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3).
    2.1 vs 3.0
  • 51.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (11100 million vs 22900 million). The average graphics card has 22900 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.
    No vs yes
  • Narrower encode codec support
    This graphics card supports narrower hardware encode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • Narrower decode codec support
    This graphics card supports narrower hardware decode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1).
    H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1
  • 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
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 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
  • 8.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (44 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    44 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 6 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (131 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    131 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

A
au.pcmag.com
14/10/2021
Summary of the review
XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Review (PCMag Australia)
U
uk.pcmag.com
13/10/2021
Summary of the review
XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Review (PCMag UK)
T
tomshardware.com
13/10/2021
Summary of the review
AMD Radeon RX 6600 Review: RDNA2 Goes Mainstream - Tom's Hardware
T
tech-critter.com
13/10/2021
Summary of the review
Review - XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 igor´sLAB
P
pcper.com
13/10/2021
Summary of the review
AMD Radeon RX 6600 Review - XFX SWFT 210 Tested - PC Perspective
P
pcmag.com
13/10/2021
Summary of the review
XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600Go to product viewer dialog for this item. Review - PCMag

Third-party reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
Reviews last updated: June 2026 · How we calculate this

What we like about XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core

  • Excellent 1080p gaming performance with high frame rates in modern titles
  • High power efficiency with significantly lower power draw than competitors like the RTX 3060
  • Compact dual-slot design (10.1 inches) suitable for small form factor (SFF) builds
  • Runs quiet and cool under standard gaming loads due to the Zero DB fan system
  • Strong price-to-performance value, often outperforming the RTX 3050 at a lower cost
  • Clean, 'barebones' aesthetic without RGB lighting, preferred by some users

What we don't like about XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core

  • Poor ray tracing performance that significantly impacts frame rates
  • Noticeable performance drop when used on older PCIe 3.0 motherboards due to 8x lane configuration
  • Mediocre performance in older legacy titles (DirectX 11) compared to Nvidia alternatives
  • Limited overclocking headroom; attempts to overclock often lead to system instability or crashes
  • Lack of 'bling' or RGB lighting may be a downside for users wanting a flashier build
  • Occasional driver stability issues and software 'glitches' reported by some users

Verdict

The XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core is a compact dual-slot graphics card featuring 8GB of GDDR6 memory, 1792 stream processors, and a boost clock up to 2491 MHz. Built on the AMD RDNA 2 architecture, it utilizes a 128-bit memory interface and 32MB of Infinity Cache to deliver high-frame-rate 1080p gaming performance with excellent power efficiency. Main pros include its sleek dual-fan thermal design for quiet operation and its small form factor ideal for mini-ITX builds. However, it is limited by a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface which can hinder performance on older Gen3 platforms and offers modest 1440p capabilities.

Compare XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core 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 XFX Speedster SWFT 210 Radeon RX 6600 Core and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found