Radeon Pro W6600 vs UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

Place in the ranking	649	100
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	70.28
Power efficiency	11.25	27.99
Architecture	Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	Tiger Lake Xe	Navi 23
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	15 August 2020 (4 years ago)	8 June 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$649

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	48	1792
Core clock speed	350 MHz	2331 MHz
Boost clock speed	1450 MHz	2903 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology	10 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 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

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	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	+	-

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

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 compatibility

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

−782%

150−160
+782%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

4.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

−764%

95−100
+764%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −746%	110−120 +746%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12 −733%	100−105 +733%
Battlefield 5	10−12 −764%	95−100 +764%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −775%	70−75 +775%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −746%	110−120 +746%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −757%	240−250 +757%
Hitman 3	10 −750%	85−90 +750%
Horizon Zero Dawn	36 −733%	300−310 +733%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −733%	100−105 +733%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −782%	150−160 +782%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −678%	350−400 +678%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −746%	110−120 +746%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Battlefield 5	10−12 −764%	95−100 +764%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −775%	70−75 +775%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −746%	110−120 +746%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −757%	240−250 +757%
Hitman 3	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 −767%	260−270 +767%
Metro Exodus	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 −733%	100−105 +733%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	17 −782%	150−160 +782%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −782%	150−160 +782%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −678%	350−400 +678%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −746%	110−120 +746%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −775%	70−75 +775%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −757%	240−250 +757%
Hitman 3	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12 −733%	100−105 +733%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 −775%	140−150 +775%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8 −775%	70−75 +775%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 −678%	350−400 +678%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14
−733%

100−105

+733%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −775%	70−75 +775%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −757%	60−65 +757%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −700%	16−18 +700%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −700%	40−45 +700%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 −775%	70−75 +775%
Hitman 3	9−10 −733%	75−80 +733%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −750%	85−90 +750%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −757%	240−250 +757%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
−775%

70−75

+775%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −700%	24−27 +700%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −700%	24−27 +700%
Hitman 3	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −775%	35−40 +775%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −700%	24−27 +700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −700%	16−18 +700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −700%	16−18 +700%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 −700%	16−18 +700%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −700%	24−27 +700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
−700%

40−45

+700%

This is how UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs and Pro W6600 compete in popular games:

Pro W6600 is 782% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.55	40.42
Recency	15 August 2020	8 June 2021
Chip lithography	10 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	28 Watt	100 Watt

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs has 257.1% lower power consumption.

Pro W6600, on the other hand, has a 788.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro W6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs in performance tests.

Be aware that UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is a notebook card while Radeon Pro W6600 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.