Radeon Pro W6600 vs GeForce RTX 3060 Ti

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce RTX 3060 Ti with Radeon Pro W6600, including specs and performance data.

RTX 3060 Ti
2020, $399
8 GB GDDR6, 200 Watt
48.31
+35.1%

RTX 3060 Ti outperforms Pro W6600 by a substantial 35% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking75160
Place by popularity24not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation52.4423.83
Power efficiency18.8127.86
ArchitectureAmpere (2020−2025)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGA104Navi 23
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date1 December 2020 (5 years ago)8 June 2021 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RTX 3060 Ti has 120% better value for money than Pro W6600.

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 cores48641792
Core clock speed1410 MHz2331 MHz
Boost clock speed1665 MHz2903 MHz
Number of transistors17,400 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology8 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate253.1325.1
Floating-point processing power16.2 TFLOPS10.4 TFLOPS
ROPs8064
TMUs152112
Tensor Cores152no data
Ray Tracing Cores3828
L0 Cacheno data448 KB
L1 Cache4.8 MB512 KB
L2 Cache4 MB2 MB
L3 Cacheno data32 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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length242 mm241 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 12-pin1x 6-pin

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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth448.0 GB/s224.0 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort4x DisplayPort
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12.0 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.1
Vulkan1.21.2
CUDA8.6-
DLSS+-

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

RTX 3060 Ti 48.31
+35.1%
Pro W6600 35.77

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

RTX 3060 Ti 20213
+35.1%
Samples: 34975
Pro W6600 14964
Samples: 195

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 HD13595−100
−29.6%
1440p74
+48%
50−55
4K48
+37.1%
35−40

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.96
+56.7%
6.83
1440p5.39
+58.5%
12.98
4K8.31
+55.2%
18.54
  • RTX 3060 Ti has 57% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RTX 3060 Ti has 58% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RTX 3060 Ti has 55% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 236
+38.8%
170−180
Counter-Strike 2 344
+37.6%
250−260
Cyberpunk 2077 132
+38.9%
95−100

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 180
+38.5%
130−140
Battlefield 5 145
+45%
100−105
Counter-Strike 2 330
+37.5%
240−250
Cyberpunk 2077 113
+41.3%
80−85
Far Cry 5 144
+44%
100−105
Fortnite 210−220
+40%
150−160
Forza Horizon 4 200
+42.9%
140−150
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+43.3%
120−130
Valorant 280−290
+40%
200−210

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 103
+37.3%
75−80
Battlefield 5 124
+37.8%
90−95
Counter-Strike 2 224
+40%
160−170
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+39%
200−210
Cyberpunk 2077 95
+35.7%
70−75
Dota 2 145
+45%
100−105
Far Cry 5 137
+37%
100−105
Far Cry 6 92
+41.5%
65−70
Fortnite 210−220
+40%
150−160
Forza Horizon 4 196
+40%
140−150
Grand Theft Auto V 141
+41%
100−105
Metro Exodus 110
+37.5%
80−85
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+43.3%
120−130
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 185
+42.3%
130−140
Valorant 280−290
+40%
200−210

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 114
+42.5%
80−85
Cyberpunk 2077 84
+40%
60−65
Dota 2 135
+42.1%
95−100
Far Cry 5 129
+35.8%
95−100
Forza Horizon 4 173
+44.2%
120−130
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+43.3%
120−130
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 92
+41.5%
65−70
Valorant 274
+37%
200−210

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 210−220
+40%
150−160

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 146
+46%
100−105
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 350−400
+40.4%
250−260
Far Cry 6 45
+50%
30−33
Grand Theft Auto V 97
+38.6%
70−75
Metro Exodus 66
+46.7%
45−50
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+45.8%
120−130
Valorant 300−350
+39.1%
230−240

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 98
+40%
70−75
Cyberpunk 2077 54
+54.3%
35−40
Far Cry 5 105
+40%
75−80
Forza Horizon 4 150
+36.4%
110−120
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110
+38.7%
75−80

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 130−140
+41.1%
95−100

4K
High

Atomic Heart 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
Counter-Strike 2 36
+50%
24−27
Far Cry 6 5
+66.7%
3−4
Grand Theft Auto V 107
+42.7%
75−80
Metro Exodus 43
+43.3%
30−33
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 77
+40%
55−60
Valorant 290−300
+39%
210−220

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65
+44.4%
45−50
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+35.6%
45−50
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+38.9%
18−20
Dota 2 109
+36.3%
80−85
Far Cry 5 65
+44.4%
45−50
Forza Horizon 4 103
+37.3%
75−80
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+41.8%
55−60

4K
Epic

Fortnite 70−75
+40%
50−55

This is how RTX 3060 Ti and Pro W6600 compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3060 Ti is 42% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3060 Ti is 48% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 3060 Ti is 37% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 48.31 35.77
Recency 1 December 2020 8 June 2021
Chip lithography 8 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 100 Watt

RTX 3060 Ti has a 35% higher aggregate performance score.

Pro W6600, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months, a 13% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 3060 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro W6600 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 3060 Ti is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro W6600 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 19670 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3060 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 98 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W6600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce RTX 3060 Ti or Radeon Pro W6600, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.