GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB vs Radeon RX 6600 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 6600 XT and GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6600 XT outperforms RTX 3050 6 GB by an impressive 53% 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 | 121 | 243 |
| Place by popularity | 85 | 13 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 54.20 | 69.22 |
| Power efficiency | 18.69 | 27.84 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 23 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 30 July 2021 (4 years ago) | 2 February 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $379 | $179 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 3050 6 GB has 28% better value for money than RX 6600 XT.
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 | 2048 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 1968 MHz | 1042 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2589 MHz | 1470 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,060 million | 8,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 331.4 | 105.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.6 TFLOPS | 6.774 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 72 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 72 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | 18 |
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 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 190 mm | 242 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 168.0 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 | 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 124
+55%
| 80−85
−55%
|
| 1440p | 68
+70%
| 40−45
−70%
|
| 4K | 40
+66.7%
| 24−27
−66.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.06
−36.6%
| 2.24
+36.6%
|
| 1440p | 5.57
−24.5%
| 4.48
+24.5%
|
| 4K | 9.48
−27%
| 7.46
+27%
|
- RTX 3050 6 GB has 37% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 3050 6 GB has 25% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 3050 6 GB has 27% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+55.7%
|
140−150
−55.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 79
+58%
|
50−55
−58%
|
| God of War | 125
+56.3%
|
80−85
−56.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+57.6%
|
85−90
−57.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+55.7%
|
140−150
−55.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+56%
|
50−55
−56%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 151
+58.9%
|
95−100
−58.9%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+55.5%
|
110−120
−55.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+61.1%
|
95−100
−61.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 159
+59%
|
100−105
−59%
|
| God of War | 108
+54.3%
|
70−75
−54.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+55%
|
100−105
−55%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+64.3%
|
140−150
−64.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+57.6%
|
85−90
−57.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+55.7%
|
140−150
−55.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+54.4%
|
180−190
−54.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 76
+68.9%
|
45−50
−68.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 170
+54.5%
|
110−120
−54.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 141
+56.7%
|
90−95
−56.7%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+55.5%
|
110−120
−55.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+61.1%
|
95−100
−61.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 142
+57.8%
|
90−95
−57.8%
|
| God of War | 86
+56.4%
|
55−60
−56.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 135
+58.8%
|
85−90
−58.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95
+58.3%
|
60−65
−58.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+55%
|
100−105
−55%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 176
+60%
|
110−120
−60%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+64.3%
|
140−150
−64.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+57.6%
|
85−90
−57.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 69
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 120
+60%
|
75−80
−60%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 133
+56.5%
|
85−90
−56.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+61.1%
|
95−100
−61.1%
|
| God of War | 60
+71.4%
|
35−40
−71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+55%
|
100−105
−55%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 99
+65%
|
60−65
−65%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+64.3%
|
140−150
−64.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 170−180
+55.5%
|
110−120
−55.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−105
+53.8%
|
65−70
−53.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+53.9%
|
180−190
−53.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 68
+70%
|
40−45
−70%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+60%
|
35−40
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+59.1%
|
110−120
−59.1%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+53.5%
|
170−180
−53.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+55.4%
|
65−70
−55.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 105
+61.5%
|
65−70
−61.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+62.9%
|
70−75
−62.9%
|
| God of War | 49
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+68.9%
|
45−50
−68.9%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−110
+61.5%
|
65−70
−61.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 64
+60%
|
40−45
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 34
+61.9%
|
21−24
−61.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54
+54.3%
|
35−40
−54.3%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+60.7%
|
150−160
−60.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+57.5%
|
40−45
−57.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
+56.4%
|
55−60
−56.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 51
+70%
|
30−33
−70%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+68.9%
|
45−50
−68.9%
|
| God of War | 31
+72.2%
|
18−20
−72.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+54.3%
|
35−40
−54.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
This is how RX 6600 XT and RTX 3050 6 GB compete in popular games:
- RX 6600 XT is 55% faster in 1080p
- RX 6600 XT is 70% faster in 1440p
- RX 6600 XT is 67% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.26 | 25.58 |
| Recency | 30 July 2021 | 2 February 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 70 Watt |
RX 6600 XT has a 53.5% higher aggregate performance score, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
RTX 3050 6 GB, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 128.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 6600 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce RTX 3050 6 GB in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
