Radeon RX 6600 XT vs GRID K520
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GRID K520 with Radeon RX 6600 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 6600 XT outperforms GRID K520 by a whopping 369% 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 | 493 | 96 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 72 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.35 | 59.02 |
| Power efficiency | 2.77 | 18.24 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (11 years ago) | 30 July 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,599 | $379 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 6600 XT has 16763% better value for money than GRID K520.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1536 ×2 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 745 MHz | 1968 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2589 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 160 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 95.36 ×2 | 331.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 | 10.6 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 ×2 | 64 |
| TMUs | 128 ×2 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | 190 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 8-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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB ×2 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit ×2 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s ×2 | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
- Passmark
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.
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 | 27−30
−374%
| 128
+374%
|
| 1440p | 14−16
−407%
| 71
+407%
|
| 4K | 8−9
−413%
| 41
+413%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 133.30
−4402%
| 2.96
+4402%
|
| 1440p | 257.07
−4716%
| 5.34
+4716%
|
| 4K | 449.88
−4767%
| 9.24
+4767%
|
- RX 6600 XT has 4402% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 6600 XT has 4716% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 6600 XT has 4767% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 151
+0%
|
151
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 159
+0%
|
159
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 170
+0%
|
170
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 141
+0%
|
141
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 142
+0%
|
142
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 135
+0%
|
135
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 176
+0%
|
176
+0%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 120
+0%
|
120
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 133
+0%
|
133
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
This is how GRID K520 and RX 6600 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6600 XT is 374% faster in 1080p
- RX 6600 XT is 407% faster in 1440p
- RX 6600 XT is 413% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.87 | 36.88 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 30 July 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 160 Watt |
RX 6600 XT has a 368.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 40.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 6600 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K520 in performance tests.
Be aware that GRID K520 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6600 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
