Radeon RX 6600 XT vs Quadro FX 370

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 370 with Radeon RX 6600 XT, including specs and performance data.

FX 370
2007, $129
256 MB DDR2, 35 Watt
0.20

6600 XT outperforms FX 370 by a whopping 19560% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1455125
Place by popularitynot in top-10083
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data52.17
Power efficiency0.4418.89
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameG84Navi 23
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date12 September 2007 (18 years ago)30 July 2021 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$129 $379

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

FX 370 and RX 6600 XT have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores162048
Core clock speed360 MHz1968 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2589 MHz
Number of transistors289 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt160 Watt
Texture fill rate2.880331.4
Floating-point processing power0.02304 TFLOPS10.6 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs8128
Ray Tracing Coresno data32
L0 Cacheno data512 KB
L1 Cacheno data512 KB
L2 Cache16 KB2 MB
L3 Cacheno data32 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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length198 mm190 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 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 typeDDR2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed500 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth8 GB/s256.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
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 Connectors2x DVI1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12.0 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA1.1-

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.

FX 370 0.20
RX 6600 XT 39.32
+19560%

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.

FX 370 83
Samples: 55
RX 6600 XT 16445
+19713%
Samples: 6188

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 HD0−1124
1440p-0−168
4K-0−140

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.06
1440pno data5.57
4Kno data9.48

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 79
+0%
79
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 78
+0%
78
+0%
Far Cry 5 151
+0%
151
+0%
Fortnite 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 159
+0%
159
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 76
+0%
76
+0%
Dota 2 170
+0%
170
+0%
Far Cry 5 141
+0%
141
+0%
Fortnite 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 142
+0%
142
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 135
+0%
135
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Metro Exodus 95
+0%
95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 176
+0%
176
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 69
+0%
69
+0%
Dota 2 120
+0%
120
+0%
Far Cry 5 133
+0%
133
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 99
+0%
99
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 68
+0%
68
+0%
Metro Exodus 56
+0%
56
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 105
+0%
105
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 64
+0%
64
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 34
+0%
34
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 54
+0%
54
+0%
Valorant 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%
Dota 2 86
+0%
86
+0%
Far Cry 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.20 39.32
Recency 12 September 2007 30 July 2021
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 160 Watt

FX 370 has 357.1% lower power consumption.

RX 6600 XT, on the other hand, has a 19560% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1042.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6600 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 370 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 370 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6600 XT is a desktop 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.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 370
Quadro FX 370
AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT
Radeon RX 6600 XT

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.


1.2 10 votes

Rate Quadro FX 370 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 5391 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 370 or Radeon RX 6600 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.