Radeon RX 6600 XT vs HD 6950M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6950M with Radeon RX 6600 XT, including specs and performance data.
6600 XT outperforms HD 6950M by a whopping 1092% 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 | 784 | 123 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 92 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 53.47 |
| Power efficiency | 5.07 | 18.87 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Blackcomb | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 30 July 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $379 |
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 | 960 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | 1968 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2589 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,700 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 160 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 27.84 | 331.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.114 TFLOPS | 10.6 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 64 |
| TMUs | 48 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 190 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 256.0 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 outputs | 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 10−12
−1140%
| 124
+1140%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
−1260%
| 68
+1260%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−1233%
| 40
+1233%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.06 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.57 |
| 4K | no data | 9.48 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−1717%
|
210−220
+1717%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−1029%
|
79
+1029%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−1017%
|
130−140
+1017%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−1717%
|
210−220
+1717%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−1014%
|
78
+1014%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
−908%
|
120−130
+908%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−1410%
|
151
+1410%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−850%
|
170−180
+850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−856%
|
150−160
+856%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−1888%
|
159
+1888%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−933%
|
150−160
+933%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−369%
|
230−240
+369%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−1017%
|
130−140
+1017%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−1717%
|
210−220
+1717%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
−356%
|
270−280
+356%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−986%
|
76
+986%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−448%
|
170
+448%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
−908%
|
120−130
+908%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−1310%
|
141
+1310%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−850%
|
170−180
+850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−856%
|
150−160
+856%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−1675%
|
142
+1675%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
−1400%
|
135
+1400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−1483%
|
95
+1483%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−933%
|
150−160
+933%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−1500%
|
176
+1500%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−369%
|
230−240
+369%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−1017%
|
130−140
+1017%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−886%
|
69
+886%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−287%
|
120
+287%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
−908%
|
120−130
+908%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−1230%
|
133
+1230%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−856%
|
150−160
+856%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−933%
|
150−160
+933%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−800%
|
99
+800%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−369%
|
230−240
+369%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
−850%
|
170−180
+850%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1343%
|
100−110
+1343%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−1012%
|
270−280
+1012%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−6700%
|
68
+6700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−5500%
|
56
+5500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−503%
|
170−180
+503%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−691%
|
260−270
+691%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40
+1900%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−1483%
|
95−100
+1483%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−1650%
|
105
+1650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−1325%
|
110−120
+1325%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1420%
|
75−80
+1420%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−1667%
|
100−110
+1667%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−327%
|
64
+327%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−1413%
|
240−250
+1413%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 14 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−760%
|
86
+760%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−2350%
|
45−50
+2350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2450%
|
51
+2450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2433%
|
75−80
+2433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−1250%
|
50−55
+1250%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1200%
|
50−55
+1200%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
This is how HD 6950M and RX 6600 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6600 XT is 1140% faster in 1080p
- RX 6600 XT is 1260% faster in 1440p
- RX 6600 XT is 1233% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6600 XT is 6700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6600 XT performs better in 57 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.30 | 39.32 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 30 July 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 160 Watt |
HD 6950M has 220% lower power consumption.
RX 6600 XT, on the other hand, has a 1091.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6600 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6950M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6950M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 6600 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
