Radeon Pro W6600M vs UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs with Radeon Pro W6600M, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6600M outperforms UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs by a whopping 527% 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 | 696 | 220 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 20.51 |
| Architecture | Gen. 12 (2021−2023) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Tiger Lake Xe | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 30 March 2021 (3 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (3 years ago) |
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 | 350 MHz | 1224 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1450 MHz | 2034 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 90 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 227.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 7.29 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
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 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | no data | 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
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 data | Portable Device Dependent |
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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX 12_1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
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 | 16
−525%
| 100−110
+525%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18
−450%
|
95−100
+450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
−500%
|
80−85
+500%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−435%
|
120−130
+435%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−432%
|
100−110
+432%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−488%
|
100−105
+488%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−217%
|
170−180
+217%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16
−519%
|
95−100
+519%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−269%
|
260−270
+269%
|
| Dota 2 | 34
−268%
|
120−130
+268%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
−546%
|
80−85
+546%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−435%
|
120−130
+435%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−432%
|
100−110
+432%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
−608%
|
90−95
+608%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
−833%
|
55−60
+833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−488%
|
100−105
+488%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−542%
|
75−80
+542%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−217%
|
170−180
+217%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 15
−560%
|
95−100
+560%
|
| Dota 2 | 31
−303%
|
120−130
+303%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−600%
|
80−85
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−432%
|
100−110
+432%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−488%
|
100−105
+488%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−542%
|
75−80
+542%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
−435%
|
120−130
+435%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
−493%
|
170−180
+493%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−1075%
|
45−50
+1075%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1033%
|
30−35
+1033%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−388%
|
210−220
+388%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−6900%
|
70−75
+6900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−480%
|
55−60
+480%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−633%
|
65−70
+633%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
−663%
|
60−65
+663%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−200%
|
45−50
+200%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
−645%
|
140−150
+645%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−531%
|
80−85
+531%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−480%
|
27−30
+480%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−800%
|
45−50
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−600%
|
27−30
+600%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs and Pro W6600M compete in popular games:
- Pro W6600M is 525% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro W6600M is 6900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro W6600M is ahead in 39 tests (59%)
- there's a draw in 27 tests (41%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.16 | 26.10 |
| Recency | 30 March 2021 | 8 June 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
Pro W6600M has a 527.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W6600M is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro W6600M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
