Radeon Pro W6600 vs UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) with Radeon Pro W6600, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6600 outperforms Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) by a whopping 1152% 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 | 829 | 156 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 25.70 |
| Power efficiency | 8.81 | 27.57 |
| Architecture | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Ice Lake G1 Gen. 11 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 28 May 2019 (6 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 | 32 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 2331 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | 2903 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-25 Watt | 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 | DDR4 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 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 | 13
−1131%
| 160−170
+1131%
|
| 4K | 9
−1122%
| 110−120
+1122%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.06 |
| 4K | no data | 5.90 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 17
−1135%
|
210−220
+1135%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1150%
|
75−80
+1150%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4
−1067%
|
35−40
+1067%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 8
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
−1150%
|
200−210
+1150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1150%
|
75−80
+1150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−1100%
|
180−190
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−1114%
|
170−180
+1114%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−1114%
|
85−90
+1114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1131%
|
160−170
+1131%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−1096%
|
550−600
+1096%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−1100%
|
120−130
+1100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4
−1150%
|
50−55
+1150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30
−1067%
|
350−400
+1067%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1150%
|
75−80
+1150%
|
| Dota 2 | 22
−1127%
|
270−280
+1127%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−1100%
|
180−190
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−1114%
|
170−180
+1114%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−1114%
|
85−90
+1114%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
−1114%
|
85−90
+1114%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1131%
|
160−170
+1131%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−1100%
|
120−130
+1100%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−1096%
|
550−600
+1096%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−1100%
|
120−130
+1100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−1150%
|
75−80
+1150%
|
| Dota 2 | 20
−1150%
|
250−260
+1150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−1150%
|
100−105
+1150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−1114%
|
170−180
+1114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1131%
|
160−170
+1131%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
−1100%
|
60−65
+1100%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−1096%
|
550−600
+1096%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−1100%
|
180−190
+1100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−1150%
|
75−80
+1150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−1138%
|
260−270
+1138%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−1054%
|
300−310
+1054%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1011%
|
300−310
+1011%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1100%
|
60−65
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1114%
|
85−90
+1114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1150%
|
50−55
+1150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1100%
|
60−65
+1100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1100%
|
180−190
+1100%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−1114%
|
170−180
+1114%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9
−1122%
|
110−120
+1122%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1067%
|
35−40
+1067%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1067%
|
35−40
+1067%
|
This is how UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) and Pro W6600 compete in popular games:
- Pro W6600 is 1131% faster in 1080p
- Pro W6600 is 1122% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.86 | 35.81 |
| Recency | 28 May 2019 | 8 June 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 100 Watt |
UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) has 733.3% lower power consumption.
Pro W6600, on the other hand, has a 1152.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) 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.
