Radeon RX 6600 XT vs NVS 510

Place in the ranking	923	90
Place by popularity	not in top-100	93
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.10	63.09
Power efficiency	3.51	18.37
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GK107	Navi 23
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	23 October 2012 (12 years ago)	30 July 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$449	$379

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 6600 XT has 62990% better value for money than NVS 510.

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	192	2048
Core clock speed	797 MHz	1968 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2589 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	160 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.75	331.4
Floating-point processing power	0.306 TFLOPS	10.6 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	64
TMUs	16	128
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	32

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 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	160 mm	190 mm
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 8-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 type	DDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	891 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.51 GB/s	256.0 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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 Connectors	4x mini-DisplayPort	1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D 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	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2
CUDA	3.0	-

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.

NVS 510 1.79

RX 6600 XT 42.86
+2294%

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.

NVS 510 691

RX 6600 XT 16520
+2291%

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	5−6 −2600%	135 +2600%
1440p	3−4 −2400%	75 +2400%
4K	1−2 −4300%	44 +4300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	89.80	2.81
1440p	149.67	5.05
4K	449.00	8.61

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	129 +0%	129 +0%
Battlefield 5	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	78 +0%	78 +0%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%
Hitman 3	108 +0%	108 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Metro Exodus	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	150−160 +0%	150−160 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	106 +0%	106 +0%
Battlefield 5	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	76 +0%	76 +0%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%
Hitman 3	108 +0%	108 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Metro Exodus	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	209 +0%	209 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	75 +0%	75 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	69 +0%	69 +0%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%
Hitman 3	100 +0%	100 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	157 +0%	157 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	183 +0%	183 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	99 +0%	99 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	61 +0%	61 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

95−100

+0%

95−100

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	56 +0%	56 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40 +0%	40 +0%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	230−240 +0%	230−240 +0%
Hitman 3	67 +0%	67 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	116 +0%	116 +0%
Metro Exodus	98 +0%	98 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	118 +0%	118 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

70−75

+0%

70−75

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Hitman 3	33 +0%	33 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	54 +0%	54 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	28 +0%	28 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14 +0%	14 +0%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	61 +0%	61 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24 +0%	24 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

35−40

+0%

35−40

+0%

This is how NVS 510 and RX 6600 XT compete in popular games:

RX 6600 XT is 2600% faster in 1080p
RX 6600 XT is 2400% faster in 1440p
RX 6600 XT is 4300% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.79	42.86
Recency	23 October 2012	30 July 2021
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	160 Watt

NVS 510 has 357.1% lower power consumption.

RX 6600 XT, on the other hand, has a 2294.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6600 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 510 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 510 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6600 XT is a desktop one.

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