The Radeon RX 6600 seemed a promising 1080p gaming card upon launch. However, lackluster specs in key areas relegate it to lower-tier status compared to rivals. For those seeking a new GPU, here are 5 fatal flaws showing why better options await.
Introduction
When shopping for a graphics card, buyers evaluate many complex specs to gauge performance. This analysis examines 5 deficiencies holding back the RX 6600:
1. Least compute units of any current RDNA 2 GPU
2. Weak ray tracing hampers visuals
3. Fewer upscaling capabilities
4. Restrictive 8GB memory size
5. Overpriced at debut
I benchmark extensively and specify how each shortcoming manifests in gameplay and application performance. Reference data tables clearly compare differences in hardware. Evidence from expert testing reinforces conclusions. Alternative graphics cards receive recommendations tailored to readers‘ needs and budgets.
Follow along this guide to understand fully why objectively better choices defeat the RX 6600.
Diminished Compute Performance
A GPU‘s compute units contain stream processors executing parallel rendering and computing tasks. The more compute units and cores, the faster and efficiently games and apps run.
The RX 6600 utilizes AMD‘s RDNA 2 architecture but has only 28 compute units – the fewest among current models:
| GPU | Compute Units | Stream Processors |
| RX 6600 | 28 CUs | 1792 cores |
| RX 6600 XT | 32 CUs | 2048 cores |
| RX 6700 XT | 40 CUs | 2560 cores |
The reduced 28 CUs give the RX 6600 16% fewer stream processors than the 6600 XT. As Tom‘s Hardware cites, more resources directly raise gaming frame rates and application benchmark scores.
In Assassin’s Creed Valhalla at 1080p Ultra, the 6600 XT hits 76 fps – a full 15 fps over the 6600‘s 61 fps. The gap widens comparing compute-intensive tasks like cryptocurrency mining:
| GPU | Ethereum Hash Rate |
| RX 6600 | 31 MH/s |
| RX 6600 XT | 38 MH/s |
The 6600 XT‘s 22% mining performance advantage stems from its 15% more compute resources over the vanilla 6600.
Clearly the 6600‘s shapred-down unit count severely restrains speed. Gamers and power users wanting higher frame rates or quicker workflows should look elsewhere.
Lackluster Ray Tracing
Ray tracing calculates complex light reflections and shadows to render stunningly realistic visuals. AMD RDNA 2 cards technically support ray tracing effects, but lack dedicated hardware like NVIDIA RTX GPUs.
Instead, Radeon GPUs use one ray accelerator inside each compute unit. The 6600 having fewer compute resources thus limits its ray tracing capabilities:
| GPU | Ray Accelerators |
| RX 6600 | 28 |
| RTX 3060 | 28 |
| RX 6650 XT | 32 |
The entry-level 6600 matches NVIDIA‘s RTX 3060 for accelerators. But dedicated RT cores in the 3060 handle calculations more efficiently. Per Tom‘s Hardware testing, the 3060 delivers better ray tracing FPS:
-
Watch Dogs Legion (1080p Ultra, Ray Tracing On)
- RX 6600 – 48 fps
- RTX 3060 – 68 fps
-
Control (1080p High, Ray Tracing On)
- RX 6600 – 54 fps
- RTX 3060 – 60 fps
Enable ray tracing, and the RX 6600‘s shaky performance dips further from already unimpressive levels. Those craving immersive, cutting-edge visuals should get a true gaming GPU like the 6650 XT or RTX 3060 Ti instead.
Upscaling Disadvantage
Upscaling intelligently improves visual fidelity when gaming at higher resolutions like 1440p or 4K. AMD and NVIDIA rely different upscaling solutions, but tests confirm NVIDIA‘s technology performs better.
The RX 6600 uses FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR). This algorithm upscales from lower render targets while applying sharpening. It works but carries a heavier performance penalty:
| GPU | Upscaling Tech | Performance Impact |
| RX 6600 | FSR | Higher |
| RTX 3060 | DLSS | Lower |
NVIDIA‘s Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) taps AI and machine learning for smarter reconstruction that looks better with less slowed performance. More games integrate DLSS over FSR too.
In Death Stranding at 4K using max settings, the RTX 3060 maintains a [playable 45 fps](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gpu-hierarchy,4388 html) with DLSS. The RX 6600 chugs at just 24 fps renders games nearly unplayable without DLSS. Even at 1440p, the 3060‘s DLSS advantage sees it hit 65 fps over the 6600‘s 48 fps.
Lacking advanced upscaling, the 6600 falls further off the pace at higher resolutions. My recommendation pairs an 1440p or 4K monitor with an NVIDIA RTX card instead for best results.
Restrictive Memory Size
A GPU‘s video memory capacity determines how detailed and expansive textures and geometry can render on-screen. More VRAM also future-proofs cards for coming years of bigger game worlds and assets.
The entry-level 6600 disappoints again with only 8 GB of VRAM – already borderline for smooth 60 fps 1080p gaming today:
| GPU | VRAM |
| RX 6600 | 8GB |
| RTX 3060 | 12GB |
| RX 6700 XT | 12GB |
The similarly priced RTX 3060 and RX 6700 XT each have 12GB – 50% more than the 6600. Their additional memory headroom better handles high-resolution textures. Tests like this Red Dead 2 benchmark already show current games pushing 8GB cards:
- RX 6600 (8GB) – 48 fps (1080p Medium)
- RTX 3060 (12GB) – 82 fps (1080p High)
- RX 6700 XT (12GB) – 93 fps (1080p Ultra)
The 6600 downshifts settings just to maintain playability – a dire sign for future proofing. Its skimpy 8GB VRAM critically hinders performance now and going forward.
Overpriced Debut
Pricing plays a pivotal role in determining a GPU‘s overall value too. Does the performance justify the cost? The RX 6600 failed this test as well upon launch.
At a staggering $329 MSRP, the neuterd 6600 cost just $50 less than the vastly superior 6600 XT. Against the similarly capable $329 RTX 3060 with better ray tracing and memory, it became impossible to recommend. Appeal dropped further as even pre-built budget PCs with older cards emerged more affordable.
Street prices have since settled around the $240 mark, but why purchase amalgamation of compromises when better alternatives exist at nearly every price point? Here‘s a price/performance breakdown:
- RX 6600 – $240
- RTX 3060 – $330
- RX 6600 XT – $270
- RX 6650 XT – $300
Either downgrade to a 6500 XT or spend slightly more for a meaningfully faster card. The vanilla 6600 lacks a competitive place in the current market.
In summary, the disproportionate introductory cost hurt adoption out the gate. And today, an abundance of superior offerings encircle the 6600 at every angle.
Across essential graphics card metrics – compute muscle, ray tracing, upscaling, memory, and value – the Radeon RX 6600 falls devastatingly short of its competition.
These manifold deficiencies ultimately sunk its prospects and continue hampering its worth today. RDNA 2 architecture refinements can‘t salvage deeply lackluster specifications.
I cannot in good faith recommend this GPU when plainly better alternatives exist that cost scarcely more:
- Overall: MSI Ventus RTX 3060 ($330)
- 1080p Gaming: AMD RX 6650 XT ($300)
- 1440p Gaming: AMD RX 6700 XT ($430)
- 4K Gaming: NVIDIA RTX 3080 12GB ($749)
Superior products sporting faster speeds, next-gen graphics tech, and future-proofing advantages stand poised to delight instead of disappoint.
Let benchmark data objectively guide your graphics card purchase towards demonstrably faster solutions than the dreadful RX 6600. This guide illuminated the 5 fatal flaws that spelled its downfall – may you avoid those pitfalls in your own search!
