Radeon Pro W6600X vs GeForce RTX 2080 Super Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 2080 Super Mobile with Radeon Pro W6600X, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2080 Super Mobile outperforms Pro W6600X by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 153 | 203 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 18.47 |
| Power efficiency | 18.79 | 20.31 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | TU104 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 April 2020 (6 years ago) | 3 August 2021 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3072 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1365 MHz | 2068 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | 2479 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 299.5 | 317.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.585 TFLOPS | 10.15 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 192 | 128 |
| Tensor Cores | 384 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | 32 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L1 Cache | 3 MB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 32 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.140 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 137
+24.5%
| 110−120
−24.5%
|
| 1440p | 95
+18.8%
| 80−85
−18.8%
|
| 4K | 65
+18.2%
| 55−60
−18.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 6.35 |
| 1440p | no data | 8.74 |
| 4K | no data | 12.71 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 110−120
+15.8%
|
95−100
−15.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+20%
|
170−180
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+21.4%
|
70−75
−21.4%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 95−100
+21.3%
|
80−85
−21.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 110−120
+15.8%
|
95−100
−15.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 169
+20.7%
|
140−150
−20.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+20%
|
170−180
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+21.4%
|
70−75
−21.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+18%
|
100−105
−18%
|
| Fortnite | 178
+18.7%
|
150−160
−18.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+18.3%
|
120−130
−18.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+21.7%
|
120−130
−21.7%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+16.8%
|
190−200
−16.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 110−120
+15.8%
|
95−100
−15.8%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 161
+23.8%
|
130−140
−23.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 200−210
+20%
|
170−180
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+15.8%
|
240−250
−15.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+21.4%
|
70−75
−21.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 153
+17.7%
|
130−140
−17.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+18%
|
100−105
−18%
|
| Fortnite | 171
+22.1%
|
140−150
−22.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+18.3%
|
120−130
−18.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 136
+23.6%
|
110−120
−23.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 92
+22.7%
|
75−80
−22.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+21.7%
|
120−130
−21.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 198
+16.5%
|
170−180
−16.5%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+16.8%
|
190−200
−16.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 147
+22.5%
|
120−130
−22.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90
+21.4%
|
70−75
−21.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 141
+17.5%
|
120−130
−17.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+18%
|
100−105
−18%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+18.3%
|
120−130
−18.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+21.7%
|
120−130
−21.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 103
+21.2%
|
85−90
−21.2%
|
| Valorant | 205
+20.6%
|
170−180
−20.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 136
+23.6%
|
110−120
−23.6%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+21.3%
|
75−80
−21.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+17.3%
|
220−230
−17.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 90
+20%
|
75−80
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+22.2%
|
45−50
−22.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+16.7%
|
150−160
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+16.4%
|
220−230
−16.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 121
+21%
|
100−105
−21%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+20%
|
35−40
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+18.7%
|
75−80
−18.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+21.2%
|
85−90
−21.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+25.5%
|
55−60
−25.5%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 104
+22.4%
|
85−90
−22.4%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 27−30
+20.8%
|
24−27
−20.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+20%
|
35−40
−20%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 97
+21.3%
|
80−85
−21.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 76
+16.9%
|
65−70
−16.9%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+18.4%
|
190−200
−18.4%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 72
+20%
|
60−65
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+20%
|
35−40
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 141
+17.5%
|
120−130
−17.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+25.5%
|
55−60
−25.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 52
+30%
|
40−45
−30%
|
This is how RTX 2080 Super Mobile and Pro W6600X compete in popular games:
- RTX 2080 Super Mobile is 25% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2080 Super Mobile is 19% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2080 Super Mobile is 18% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 36.39 | 31.48 |
| Recency | 2 April 2020 | 3 August 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 120 Watt |
RTX 2080 Super Mobile has a 16% higher aggregate performance score.
Pro W6600X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 71% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2080 Super Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro W6600X in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 2080 Super Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro W6600X is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
