RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell vs Radeon RX 6600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 6600 with RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, including specs and performance data.

RX 6600
2021, $329
8 GB GDDR6, 132 Watt
36.03
RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell
2025
48 GB GDDR7, 300 Watt
77.97
+116%

RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell outperforms RX 6600 by a whopping 116% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking15710
Place by popularity22not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation49.88no data
Power efficiency21.2020.19
ArchitectureRDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026)
GPU code nameNavi 23GB202
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date13 October 2021 (4 years ago)18 March 2025 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores179214080
Core clock speed1626 MHz1740 MHz
Boost clock speed2491 MHz2377 MHz
Number of transistors11,060 million92,200 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)132 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate279.01,045.9
Floating-point processing power8.928 TFLOPS66.94 TFLOPS
ROPs64176
TMUs112440
Tensor Coresno data440
Ray Tracing Cores28110
L0 Cache448 KBno data
L1 Cache512 KB13.8 MB
L2 Cache2 MB96 MB
L3 Cache32 MBno 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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 5.0 x16
Length190 mm267 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pin1x 16-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 typeGDDR6GDDR7
Maximum RAM amount8 GB48 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth224.0 GB/s1.34 TB/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 2.1b
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12.0 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.13.0
Vulkan1.21.4
CUDA-12.0
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.

RX 6600 36.03
RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell 77.97
+116%

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.

RX 6600 15042
Samples: 15794
RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell 32550
+116%
Samples: 71

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 HD103220−230
+114%
1440p53
−51.8%
110−120
4K3060−65
+100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.19no data
1440p6.21no data
4K10.97no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 169 350−400
+107%
Counter-Strike 2 345 700−750
+103%
Cyberpunk 2077 107 230−240
+115%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 125 270−280
+116%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 120 250−260
+108%
Battlefield 5 120−130 270−280
+111%
Counter-Strike 2 303 650−700
+115%
Cyberpunk 2077 91 190−200
+109%
Far Cry 5 154 300−310
+94.8%
Fortnite 160−170 300−310
+87.5%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150 300−310
+113%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150 300−310
+107%
Valorant 220−230 450−500
+104%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 70 150−160
+114%
Battlefield 5 120−130 270−280
+111%
Counter-Strike 2 146 300−310
+105%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 600−650
+116%
Cyberpunk 2077 73 150−160
+105%
Dota 2 150 300−310
+100%
Far Cry 5 142 300−310
+111%
Fortnite 160−170 300−310
+87.5%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150 300−310
+113%
Grand Theft Auto V 137 290−300
+112%
Metro Exodus 82 170−180
+107%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150 300−310
+107%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 147 300−310
+104%
Valorant 220−230 450−500
+104%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 120−130 270−280
+111%
Cyberpunk 2077 59 120−130
+103%
Dota 2 107 230−240
+115%
Far Cry 5 134 280−290
+109%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150 300−310
+113%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150 300−310
+107%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 90 190−200
+111%
Valorant 220−230 450−500
+104%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 160−170 300−310
+87.5%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 85 180−190
+112%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260 550−600
+115%
Grand Theft Auto V 64 130−140
+103%
Metro Exodus 48 100−105
+108%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 350−400
+100%
Valorant 250−260 500−550
+96.9%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 95−100 200−210
+111%
Cyberpunk 2077 34 70−75
+106%
Far Cry 5 91 190−200
+109%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110 220−230
+116%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70 140−150
+106%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 95−100 200−210
+108%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 27−30 60−65
+107%
Counter-Strike 2 20 40−45
+100%
Grand Theft Auto V 60 120−130
+100%
Metro Exodus 29 60−65
+107%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44 95−100
+116%
Valorant 220−230 450−500
+102%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60 120−130
+107%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45 90−95
+114%
Cyberpunk 2077 14 30−33
+114%
Dota 2 85 180−190
+112%
Far Cry 5 44 95−100
+116%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70 140−150
+106%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50 100−105
+113%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 45−50 100−105
+113%

This is how RX 6600 and RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell compete in popular games:

  • RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is 114% faster in 1080p
  • RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is 108% faster in 1440p
  • RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is 100% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 36.03 77.97
Recency 13 October 2021 18 March 2025
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 48 GB
Chip lithography 7 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 132 Watt 300 Watt

RX 6600 has 56% lower power consumption.

RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, on the other hand, has a 116% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 29% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 6600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 6600 is a desktop graphics card while RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell 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 13563 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 379 votes

Rate RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 6600 or RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.