Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) vs Radeon Pro W6600X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W6600X with Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), including specs and performance data.
Pro W6600X outperforms Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) by an impressive 69% 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 | 203 | 510 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.44 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 20.33 | no data |
| Architecture | RDNA 2 (2021−2023) | Xe LPG (2023−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 23 | Meteor Lake iGPU |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 August 2021 (5 years ago) | 14 December 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | no data |
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 | 2048 | 4 |
| Core clock speed | 2068 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2479 MHz | 1950 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11.1 billion | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 317.3 | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | no data |
| TMUs | 128 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | no data |
| L3 Cache | 32 MB | no data |
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).
| Interface | Apple MPX | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 2x HDMI 2.1 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12_2 |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.4 | - |
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 | 80−85
+68.8%
| 25
−68.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 8.74 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how Pro W6600X and Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) compete in popular games:
- Pro W6600X is 69% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.48 | 9.62 |
| Recency | 3 August 2021 | 14 December 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
Pro W6600X has a 69% higher aggregate performance score.
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 29% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W6600X is our recommended choice as it beats the Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W6600X is a workstation graphics card while Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
