Radeon RX 6600 XT vs GeForce GTX 560
Aggregated performance score
Radeon RX 6600 XT outperforms GeForce GTX 560 by 503% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 513 | 79 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 51 |
| Value for money | 1.64 | 47.22 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Navi / RDNA2 (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 May 2011 (12 years old) | 30 July 2021 (2 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $379 |
| Current price | $76 (0.4x MSRP) | $283 (0.7x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 6600 XT has 2779% better value for money than GTX 560.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 336 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 1968 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2589 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 160 (TGP) Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 99 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 45.36 | 331.4 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,088.6 gflops | no data |
Size and 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).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 8.25" (21 cm) | 190 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | Two 6-pin | 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
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 | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 16000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI | 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | no data |
| 3D Gaming | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics 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 | 4.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Radeon RX 6600 XT outperforms GeForce GTX 560 by 503% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon RX 6600 XT outperforms GeForce GTX 560 by 503% in Passmark.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Radeon RX 6600 XT outperforms GeForce GTX 560 by 835% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 | 21−24
−529%
| 132
+529%
|
| 1440p | 12−14
−517%
| 74
+517%
|
| 4K | 6−7
−583%
| 41
+583%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 7.06 | 42.56 |
| Recency | 17 May 2011 | 30 July 2021 |
| Cost | $199 | $379 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 160 Watt |
The Radeon RX 6600 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
