GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile vs Radeon Pro W6600X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W6600X with GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6600X outperforms RTX 2060 Mobile by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 160 | 195 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 56.62 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 19.31 | 17.98 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Navi 23 | TU106 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 August 2021 (3 years ago) | 29 January 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2048 | 1920 |
| Core clock speed | 2068 MHz | 960 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2479 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,060 million | 10,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 115 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 317.3 | 144.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.15 TFLOPS | 4.608 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 | 120 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 240 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | 30 |
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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 336.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 110−120
+5.8%
| 104
−5.8%
|
| 1440p | 70−75
+6.1%
| 66
−6.1%
|
| 4K | 45−50
+9.8%
| 41
−9.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.35 | no data |
| 1440p | 9.99 | no data |
| 4K | 15.53 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 96
+0%
|
96
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 162
+0%
|
162
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 108
+0%
|
108
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 171
+0%
|
171
+0%
|
| Valorant | 223
+0%
|
223
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 111
+0%
|
111
+0%
|
| Valorant | 196
+0%
|
196
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Valorant | 123
+0%
|
123
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 113
+0%
|
113
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 212
+0%
|
212
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Valorant | 171
+0%
|
171
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
This is how Pro W6600X and RTX 2060 Mobile compete in popular games:
- Pro W6600X is 6% faster in 1080p
- Pro W6600X is 6% faster in 1440p
- Pro W6600X is 10% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 29.34 | 26.17 |
| Recency | 3 August 2021 | 29 January 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 115 Watt |
Pro W6600X has a 12.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.
RTX 2060 Mobile, on the other hand, has 4.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W6600X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W6600X is a workstation card while GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
