Radeon Pro W6600M vs GeForce GTX 980 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Mobile with Radeon Pro W6600M, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6600M outperforms 980 Mobile by a considerable 41% 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 | 316 | 238 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.12 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.47 | 23.34 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 21 September 2015 (10 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $395.82 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2048 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 1224 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | 2034 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100-200 Watt | 90 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 136.2 | 227.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.358 TFLOPS | 7.29 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 128 | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 448 KB |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 99
−31.3%
| 130−140
+31.3%
|
| 4K | 46
−30.4%
| 60−65
+30.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.00 | no data |
| 4K | 8.60 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−40.2%
|
150−160
+40.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−47.6%
|
60−65
+47.6%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 40−45
−54.5%
|
65−70
+54.5%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−29.3%
|
100−110
+29.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−40.2%
|
150−160
+40.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−47.6%
|
60−65
+47.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
−40.6%
|
90−95
+40.6%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−26%
|
130−140
+26%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
−36.3%
|
100−110
+36.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
−41.9%
|
85−90
+41.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−46.1%
|
110−120
+46.1%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−23.8%
|
180−190
+23.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−29.3%
|
100−110
+29.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−40.2%
|
150−160
+40.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
−14.9%
|
270−280
+14.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−47.6%
|
60−65
+47.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
−17.1%
|
130−140
+17.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
−40.6%
|
90−95
+40.6%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−26%
|
130−140
+26%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
−36.3%
|
100−110
+36.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
−41.9%
|
85−90
+41.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84
−17.9%
|
95−100
+17.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−46.5%
|
60−65
+46.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−46.1%
|
110−120
+46.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
−3.6%
|
85−90
+3.6%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−23.8%
|
180−190
+23.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−29.3%
|
100−110
+29.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−47.6%
|
60−65
+47.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
−17.1%
|
130−140
+17.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
−40.6%
|
90−95
+40.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
−36.3%
|
100−110
+36.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−46.1%
|
110−120
+46.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
−97.7%
|
85−90
+97.7%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−23.8%
|
180−190
+23.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
−26%
|
130−140
+26%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−55%
|
60−65
+55%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−37.1%
|
190−200
+37.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−51.4%
|
50−55
+51.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−46.2%
|
35−40
+46.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−1.7%
|
170−180
+1.7%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−19.7%
|
210−220
+19.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−35.7%
|
75−80
+35.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−52.6%
|
27−30
+52.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−45.5%
|
60−65
+45.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−49%
|
70−75
+49%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
−53.3%
|
45−50
+53.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
−50%
|
65−70
+50%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−61.1%
|
27−30
+61.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+11.1%
|
50−55
−11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
−40%
|
40−45
+40%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−46.9%
|
160−170
+46.9%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
−43.3%
|
40−45
+43.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−61.1%
|
27−30
+61.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−29.4%
|
85−90
+29.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−50%
|
30−35
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−44.1%
|
45−50
+44.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−55%
|
30−35
+55%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−52.4%
|
30−35
+52.4%
|
This is how GTX 980 Mobile and Pro W6600M compete in popular games:
- Pro W6600M is 31% faster in 1080p
- Pro W6600M is 30% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 980 Mobile is 11% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro W6600M is 98% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 980 Mobile performs better in 1 test (2%)
- Pro W6600M performs better in 59 tests (98%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.39 | 27.28 |
| Recency | 21 September 2015 | 8 June 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 90 Watt |
Pro W6600M has a 41% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 11% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W6600M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 980 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 Mobile 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.
