Radeon RX 6600M vs HD Graphics

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics with Radeon RX 6600M, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics
2012
35 Watt
0.67

RX 6600M outperforms HD Graphics by a whopping 4543% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1162140
Place by popularity68not in top-100
Power efficiency1.5324.82
ArchitectureGeneration 7.0 (2012−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameIvy Bridge GT1Navi 23
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date1 April 2012 (12 years ago)31 May 2021 (3 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 cores481792
Core clock speed650 MHz2068 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz2416 MHz
Number of transistors392 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate6.300270.6
Floating-point processing power0.1008 TFLOPS8.659 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs6112
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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
WidthIGPno data
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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+-
Resizable BAR-+

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.5
OpenGL4.04.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan1.1.801.3

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.

HD Graphics 0.67
RX 6600M 31.11
+4543%

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 299
RX 6600M 13911
+4553%

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.

HD Graphics 300
RX 6600M 23525
+7742%

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 HD2−3
−4900%
100
+4900%
1440p1−2
−5400%
55
+5400%
4K0−130

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 164
+0%
164
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 92
+0%
92
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 107
+0%
107
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 114
+0%
114
+0%
Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 75
+0%
75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 83
+0%
83
+0%
Far Cry 5 116
+0%
116
+0%
Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 202
+0%
202
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 83
+0%
83
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 67
+0%
67
+0%
Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 66
+0%
66
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 69
+0%
69
+0%
Dota 2 114
+0%
114
+0%
Far Cry 5 108
+0%
108
+0%
Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 199
+0%
199
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 116
+0%
116
+0%
Metro Exodus 80
+0%
80
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 142
+0%
142
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 49
+0%
49
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 61
+0%
61
+0%
Dota 2 104
+0%
104
+0%
Far Cry 5 101
+0%
101
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 168
+0%
168
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 76
+0%
76
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 85
+0%
85
+0%
Valorant 144
+0%
144
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 61
+0%
61
+0%
Metro Exodus 47
+0%
47
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%
Far Cry 5 90
+0%
90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 128
+0%
128
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+0%
62
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 58
+0%
58
+0%
Metro Exodus 28
+0%
28
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+0%
44
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+0%
19
+0%
Dota 2 80
+0%
80
+0%
Far Cry 5 44
+0%
44
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 74
+0%
74
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

This is how HD Graphics and RX 6600M compete in popular games:

  • RX 6600M is 4900% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6600M is 5400% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.67 31.11
Recency 1 April 2012 31 May 2021
Chip lithography 22 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 100 Watt

HD Graphics has 185.7% lower power consumption.

RX 6600M, on the other hand, has a 4543.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 214.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6600M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics is a desktop card while Radeon RX 6600M is a notebook one.

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
HD Graphics
AMD Radeon RX 6600M
Radeon RX 6600M

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.


2.3 2311 votes

Rate HD Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 1029 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6600M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about HD Graphics or Radeon RX 6600M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.