Radeon Pro W6600 vs HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics with Radeon Pro W6600, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6600 outperforms HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics by a whopping 1946% 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 | 977 | 156 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 25.70 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 27.57 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | no data | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 8 February 2012 (14 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $649 |
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 | 880 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 400 / 600 MHz | 2331 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2903 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 325.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 10.4 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 448 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 | no data | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 type | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | 4x DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
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 | 26
−1823%
| 500−550
+1823%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.30 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−1900%
|
140−150
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1900%
|
200−210
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1900%
|
220−230
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1927%
|
750−800
+1927%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−1927%
|
750−800
+1927%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−1900%
|
400−450
+1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−1900%
|
140−150
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1900%
|
200−210
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1900%
|
220−230
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1900%
|
160−170
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1927%
|
750−800
+1927%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−1900%
|
400−450
+1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1900%
|
200−210
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1900%
|
220−230
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1900%
|
160−170
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1927%
|
750−800
+1927%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−1900%
|
140−150
+1900%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−1900%
|
240−250
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−1844%
|
350−400
+1844%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−1900%
|
220−230
+1900%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1900%
|
80−85
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1900%
|
280−290
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−1900%
|
180−190
+1900%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
This is how HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics and Pro W6600 compete in popular games:
- Pro W6600 is 1823% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.75 | 35.81 |
| Recency | 8 February 2012 | 8 June 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
Pro W6600 has a 1946% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 471% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro W6600 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
