Radeon Pro W6600M vs GeForce 710M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 710M with Radeon Pro W6600M, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6600M outperforms 710M by a whopping 2437% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1133 | 240 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.50 | 23.25 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 24 July 2013 (12 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (4 years ago) |
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 | 192 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 719 MHz | 1224 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | 2034 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 90 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 11.50 | 227.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2761 TFLOPS | 7.29 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 448 KB |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | DDR3 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 224.0 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 2560x1600 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 2560x1600 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2950%
|
60−65
+2950%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 100−110 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2950%
|
60−65
+2950%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−5050%
|
100−110
+5050%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−6450%
|
130−140
+6450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1457%
|
100−110
+1457%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−8700%
|
85−90
+8700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1122%
|
110−120
+1122%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−469%
|
180−190
+469%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 100−110 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−938%
|
270−280
+938%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2950%
|
60−65
+2950%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−767%
|
130−140
+767%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−5050%
|
100−110
+5050%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−6450%
|
130−140
+6450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1457%
|
100−110
+1457%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−8700%
|
85−90
+8700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−6200%
|
60−65
+6200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1122%
|
110−120
+1122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1129%
|
85−90
+1129%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−469%
|
180−190
+469%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 100−110 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2950%
|
60−65
+2950%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−767%
|
130−140
+767%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−5050%
|
100−110
+5050%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−4400%
|
90−95
+4400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1457%
|
100−110
+1457%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1122%
|
110−120
+1122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1129%
|
85−90
+1129%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−469%
|
180−190
+469%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−6450%
|
130−140
+6450%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−1450%
|
60−65
+1450%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−2686%
|
190−200
+2686%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1491%
|
170−180
+1491%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−21800%
|
210−220
+21800%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−2033%
|
60−65
+2033%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−6300%
|
60−65
+6300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2333%
|
70−75
+2333%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−2200%
|
45−50
+2200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3300%
|
65−70
+3300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−286%
|
50−55
+286%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−3220%
|
160−170
+3220%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 85−90 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1450%
|
30−35
+1450%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1500%
|
30−35
+1500%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro W6600M is 21800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro W6600M performs better in 43 tests (73%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (27%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.07 | 27.15 |
| Recency | 24 July 2013 | 8 June 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 90 Watt |
GeForce 710M has 500% lower power consumption.
Pro W6600M, on the other hand, has a 2437.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W6600M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 710M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 710M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro W6600M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
