Radeon Pro W6600 vs UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs with Radeon Pro W6600, including specs and performance data.

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs
2020
28 Watt
4.57

Pro W6600 outperforms UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs by a whopping 778% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking657105
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data73.48
Power efficiency11.2627.66
ArchitectureGen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameTiger Lake XeNavi 23
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date15 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 cores481792
Core clock speed350 MHz2331 MHz
Boost clock speed1450 MHz2903 MHz
Number of transistorsno data11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rateno data325.1
Floating-point processing powerno data10.4 TFLOPS
ROPsno data64
TMUsno data112
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeno dataGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountno data8 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data224.0 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 Connectorsno data4x 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.

DirectX12_112.0 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.1
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 HD17
−724%
140−150
+724%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.64

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−750%
85−90
+750%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
−764%
95−100
+764%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−746%
110−120
+746%
Counter-Strike 2 7
−757%
60−65
+757%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−750%
85−90
+750%
Forza Horizon 4 21
−757%
180−190
+757%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
−775%
70−75
+775%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−764%
95−100
+764%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−757%
120−130
+757%
Valorant 17
−724%
140−150
+724%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−746%
110−120
+746%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−750%
85−90
+750%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−750%
85−90
+750%
Dota 2 15
−767%
130−140
+767%
Far Cry 5 22
−764%
190−200
+764%
Fortnite 27−30
−752%
230−240
+752%
Forza Horizon 4 17
−724%
140−150
+724%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
−775%
70−75
+775%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
−750%
85−90
+750%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−764%
95−100
+764%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
−669%
300−310
+669%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−757%
120−130
+757%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−767%
130−140
+767%
Valorant 12
−733%
100−105
+733%
World of Tanks 25
−740%
210−220
+740%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−746%
110−120
+746%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−750%
85−90
+750%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−750%
85−90
+750%
Dota 2 24
−775%
210−220
+775%
Far Cry 5 14
−757%
120−130
+757%
Forza Horizon 4 16
−775%
140−150
+775%
Forza Horizon 5 8−9
−775%
70−75
+775%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
−669%
300−310
+669%
Valorant 12−14
−733%
100−105
+733%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−771%
270−280
+771%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
World of Tanks 30−35
−748%
280−290
+748%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−733%
50−55
+733%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
−771%
270−280
+771%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−700%
40−45
+700%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−750%
85−90
+750%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−757%
60−65
+757%
Forza Horizon 5 6−7
−733%
50−55
+733%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−757%
60−65
+757%
Valorant 12−14
−746%
110−120
+746%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
−775%
140−150
+775%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−775%
140−150
+775%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−746%
110−120
+746%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−775%
140−150
+775%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Dota 2 16−18
−775%
140−150
+775%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−700%
40−45
+700%
Fortnite 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−700%
16−18
+700%
Valorant 4−5
−775%
35−40
+775%

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

  • Pro W6600 is 724% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.57 40.11
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 777.7% 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs
AMD Radeon Pro W6600
Radeon Pro W6600

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 480 votes

Rate UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 67 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W6600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.