Radeon Pro W6600M vs GeForce RTX 3070 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3070 Ti with Radeon Pro W6600M, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3070 Ti outperforms Pro W6600M by a whopping 104% 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 | 50 | 240 |
| Place by popularity | 63 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 47.46 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 14.74 | 23.26 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2025) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GA104 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 31 May 2021 (4 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | 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 | 6144 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1575 MHz | 1224 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1770 MHz | 2034 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 17,400 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 290 Watt | 90 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 339.8 | 227.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 21.75 TFLOPS | 7.29 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 64 |
| TMUs | 192 | 112 |
| Tensor Cores | 192 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 48 | 28 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 448 KB |
| L1 Cache | 6 MB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 12-pin | 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 | GDDR6X | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1188 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 608.3 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 8.6 | - |
| 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.
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 | 169
+111%
| 80−85
−111%
|
| 1440p | 91
+128%
| 40−45
−128%
|
| 4K | 59
+119%
| 27−30
−119%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.54 | no data |
| 1440p | 6.58 | no data |
| 4K | 10.15 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 350
+123%
|
150−160
−123%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 178
+192%
|
60−65
−192%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+52.8%
|
100−110
−52.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 337
+115%
|
150−160
−115%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 141
+131%
|
60−65
−131%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+17.5%
|
100−110
−17.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 205
+128%
|
90−95
−128%
|
| Fortnite | 250−260
+93.9%
|
130−140
−93.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+100%
|
100−110
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 210
+139%
|
85−90
−139%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+58.2%
|
110−120
−58.2%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+69.2%
|
180−190
−69.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+52.8%
|
100−110
−52.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 266
+69.4%
|
150−160
−69.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+3%
|
270−280
−3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 124
+103%
|
60−65
−103%
|
| Dota 2 | 249
+91.5%
|
130−140
−91.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+17.5%
|
100−110
−17.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 196
+118%
|
90−95
−118%
|
| Fortnite | 250−260
+93.9%
|
130−140
−93.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+100%
|
100−110
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 196
+123%
|
85−90
−123%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 173
+74.7%
|
95−100
−74.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 145
+130%
|
60−65
−130%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+58.2%
|
110−120
−58.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 294
+242%
|
85−90
−242%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+69.2%
|
180−190
−69.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170
+52.8%
|
100−110
−52.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 113
+85.2%
|
60−65
−85.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 230
+76.9%
|
130−140
−76.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+17.5%
|
100−110
−17.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 183
+103%
|
90−95
−103%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 210−220
+100%
|
100−110
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+58.2%
|
110−120
−58.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 144
+67.4%
|
85−90
−67.4%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+69.2%
|
180−190
−69.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 250−260
+93.9%
|
130−140
−93.9%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160
+158%
|
60−65
−158%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 400−450
+114%
|
190−200
−114%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 137
+158%
|
50−55
−158%
|
| Metro Exodus | 89
+134%
|
35−40
−134%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+63%
|
210−220
−63%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+81.6%
|
75−80
−81.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 73
+152%
|
27−30
−152%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+87.5%
|
60−65
−87.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 150
+134%
|
60−65
−134%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+147%
|
70−75
−147%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 113
+146%
|
45−50
−146%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+122%
|
65−70
−122%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 47
+62.1%
|
27−30
−62.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 147
+172%
|
50−55
−172%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+133%
|
24−27
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 109
+160%
|
40−45
−160%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+89.8%
|
160−170
−89.8%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+126%
|
40−45
−126%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+148%
|
27−30
−148%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35
+169%
|
12−14
−169%
|
| Dota 2 | 194
+120%
|
85−90
−120%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+163%
|
30−33
−163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 82
+148%
|
30−35
−148%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+165%
|
45−50
−165%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+210%
|
30−35
−210%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+147%
|
30−35
−147%
|
This is how RTX 3070 Ti and Pro W6600M compete in popular games:
- RTX 3070 Ti is 111% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3070 Ti is 128% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3070 Ti is 119% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3070 Ti is 242% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3070 Ti performs better in 63 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 55.44 | 27.15 |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 290 Watt | 90 Watt |
RTX 3070 Ti has a 104.2% higher aggregate performance score.
Pro W6600M, on the other hand, has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 222.2% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3070 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro W6600M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 3070 Ti is a desktop 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.
