Radeon Pro W6600 vs HD Graphics 4600

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 4600 with Radeon Pro W6600, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 4600
2013
45 Watt
1.77

Pro W6600 outperforms HD Graphics 4600 by a whopping 2073% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking924109
Place by popularity57not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data73.21
Power efficiency6.3427.55
ArchitectureGeneration 7.5 (2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameHaswell GT2Navi 23
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date27 May 2013 (11 years ago)8 June 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores1601792
Core clock speed400 MHz2331 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHz2903 MHz
Number of transistors392 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate22.00325.1
Floating-point processing power0.352 TFLOPS10.4 TFLOPS
ROPs264
TMUs20112
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared8 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data224.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-

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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent4x DisplayPort

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync+no data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)12.0 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.34.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan+1.2

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. 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.

HD Graphics 4600 1.77
Pro W6600 38.46
+2073%

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.

HD Graphics 4600 710
Pro W6600 15414
+2071%

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:

900p14
−2043%
300−350
+2043%
Full HD11
−1991%
230−240
+1991%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.82

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−2000%
210−220
+2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−2000%
210−220
+2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−2000%
210−220
+2000%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6
−2067%
130−140
+2067%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−2000%
210−220
+2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Dota 2 10
−2000%
210−220
+2000%
Far Cry 5 16
−1775%
300−310
+1775%
Fortnite 9−10
−2011%
190−200
+2011%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−2000%
210−220
+2000%
Grand Theft Auto V 4
−2025%
85−90
+2025%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18
−1844%
350−400
+1844%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−2025%
170−180
+2025%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
World of Tanks 27
−1937%
550−600
+1937%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−2000%
210−220
+2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Dota 2 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−2054%
280−290
+2054%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−2000%
210−220
+2000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
−2005%
400−450
+2005%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−2067%
260−270
+2067%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
World of Tanks 12−14
−2067%
260−270
+2067%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−2067%
130−140
+2067%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Valorant 7−8
−2043%
150−160
+2043%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
−1775%
300−310
+1775%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−1900%
300−310
+1900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−1900%
300−310
+1900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%
Dota 2 16−18
−1775%
300−310
+1775%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Valorant 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%

This is how HD Graphics 4600 and Pro W6600 compete in popular games:

  • Pro W6600 is 2043% faster in 900p
  • Pro W6600 is 1991% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.77 38.46
Recency 27 May 2013 8 June 2021
Chip lithography 22 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 100 Watt

HD Graphics 4600 has 122.2% lower power consumption.

Pro W6600, on the other hand, has a 2072.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 214.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro W6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 4600 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 4600 is a notebook card while Radeon Pro W6600 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel HD Graphics 4600
HD Graphics 4600
AMD Radeon Pro W6600
Radeon Pro W6600

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 2574 votes

Rate HD Graphics 4600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 67 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W6600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.