AMD Radeon 740M vs AMD Radeon RX 6600S Comparison

The AMD Radeon 740M and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S represent two fundamentally different answers to mobile graphics: a modern integrated GPU built on a advanced process, and a dedicated gaming part from the previous architecture generation. The database shows a clear split. The RX 6600S dominates raw throughput benchmarks, while the 740M counters with a far newer design, a denser node, and a much leaner power envelope. Understanding which one wins depends entirely on what the buyer needs the silicon to do.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The RX 6600S. In the only head-to-head test both parts share, Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6600S scored 66435 against the 740M's 10172, a gap of 84.7 percent in favor of the dedicated card.

Q: Do they use the same API feature set?

A: Yes. Both report DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so feature-level compatibility is identical despite the architecture gap.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 740M averages 12870 across its recorded tests; the RX 6600S averages 10629. Note that these averages come from different test mixes, so the direct OpenCL comparison is the more meaningful indicator of relative performance.

Q: Which rivals does each GPU sit closest to in the database?

A: The 740M lands within a fraction of a percent of the AMD FirePro W5100 (12847, delta 0.2 percent), the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (12831, 0.3 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12830, 0.3 percent), and the AMD Radeon RX 580 (12928, -0.4 percent). The RX 6600S clusters near the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10582, 0.4 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10690, -0.6 percent), the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10761, -1.2 percent), and the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10481, 1.4 percent).

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. The 740M is listed as Active, while the RX 6600S is listed as End-of-life.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The 740M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The RX 6600S has dedicated 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus delivering 224.0 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

These two parts bookend AMD's recent GPU history. The 740M is an RDNA 3.0 design, part of the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation, fabricated on the Phoenix2 chip. The RX 6600S is an RDNA 2.0 part from the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation, built on the Navi 23 chip.

The manufacturing contrast is stark. The 740M is produced on TSMC's 4 nm process, packing 20,900 million transistors into a 137 mm² die, which works out to 152.6M transistors per mm². The RX 6600S uses TSMC's 7 nm node with 11,060 million transistors across 237 mm², a density of 46.7M per mm². The integrated part is more than three times as dense, which is what allows a modern IGP to fit inside a processor package.

Yet the older, larger die carries far more rendering hardware. The RX 6600S fields 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores. The 740M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and 4 RT cores. That sevenfold shading advantage explains the benchmark results on its own. AMD compensates on the 740M with clock speed: it boosts to 2800 MHz from an 800 MHz base, while the RX 6600S runs a 1700 MHz base, a 2000 MHz boost, and an 1881 MHz game clock. Even at those higher clocks, the 740M reaches only 2.867 TFLOPS FP32. The RX 6600S delivers 7.168 TFLOPS FP32, plus 14.34 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 rate versus the 740M's 1:1 rate of 2.867 TFLOPS FP16.

The output-pipeline gap is just as wide. The RX 6600S pushes 128.0 GPixel/s and 224.0 GTexel/s, against 22.40 GPixel/s and 44.80 GTexel/s for the 740M. Ray tracing follows the same pattern with 28 RT cores versus 4. On memory, the RX 6600S's dedicated GDDR6 running at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) gives it guaranteed bandwidth, while the 740M depends entirely on system memory speed and allocation.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward split. For gaming and any workload where GPU throughput is the bottleneck, the RX 6600S is the only choice: an 84.7 percent win in the shared Geekbench OpenCL test, roughly 2.5 times the FP32 compute, 5.7 times the pixel rate, and dedicated high-bandwidth memory leave no ambiguity. Its Passmark G3D score of 12649 and DirectX results (176 for DirectX 9, 105 for DirectX 11, 81 for DirectX 10, 56 for DirectX 12) reflect a part built for rendering work.

The 740M makes its case on efficiency and currency. Its 45 W TDP against the RX 6600S's 80 W means it does its work with a much smaller power draw, and it needs no power connectors, no dedicated memory, and no board space beyond the processor package itself. It is also an Active product on a 4 nm node with RDNA 3.0 features, while the RX 6600S is End-of-life on 7 nm RDNA 2.0. Buyers prioritizing battery life, thin designs, or a modern platform should take the 740M; buyers prioritizing frame rates should take the RX 6600S while it remains available.

Specification Differences

• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 (740M) versus RDNA 2.0 (RX 6600S)
• Generation: Navi III IGP (Phoenix) versus Navi Mobile (RX 6000M)
• Chip: Phoenix2 versus Navi 23
• Process node: 4 nm versus 7 nm
• Transistors: 20,900 million versus 11,060 million
• Die size: 137 mm² versus 237 mm²
• Transistor density: 152.6M/mm² versus 46.7M/mm²
• Base clock: 800 MHz versus 1700 MHz
• Boost clock: 2800 MHz versus 2000 MHz
• Game clock: not recorded versus 1881 MHz
• Memory: System Shared (size, type, bus, bandwidth all system-dependent) versus 4 GB GDDR6, 128-bit, 224.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 256 versus 1792
• TMUs: 16 versus 112
• ROPs: 8 versus 64
• RT cores: 4 versus 28
• Pixel rate: 22.40 GPixel/s versus 128.0 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 44.80 GTexel/s versus 224.0 GTexel/s
• FP32: 2.867 TFLOPS versus 7.168 TFLOPS
• FP16: 2.867 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 14.34 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 45 W versus 80 W
• Display outputs: Motherboard Dependent versus Portable Device Dependent
• Production status: Active versus End-of-life
• Release date: January 2024 versus January 2022 (as recorded in the database)

Shared traits worth noting: both use PCIe 4.0 x8, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, and both list no power connectors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only one test appears in both parts' records, and it is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6600S scored 66435 while the 740M managed 10172. That is an 84.7 percent margin for the dedicated GPU, roughly a 6.5x advantage in the same compute workload. For OpenCL-driven tasks, video encoding, physics compute, and general GPGPU work, the RX 6600S is in a different class.

The supporting data reinforces the picture. The 740M's Geekbench Vulkan score of 15568, while its best recorded result, still trails the RX 6600S's OpenCL figure by a wide margin, and the Passmark suite adds depth on the dedicated card's side: a G3D score of 12649, GPU compute at 4879, G2D at 647, and DirectX results spanning 176 (DX9), 105 (DX11), 81 (DX10), and 56 (DX12).

The percentile data offers a nuance. The 740M sits at the 53rd percentile against all GPUs in the database, while the RX 6600S sits at the 49th. Those positions are closer than the OpenCL blowout suggests, largely because the percentile calculation draws on each part's full test mix. The 740M's average of 12870 also edges the RX 6600S's 10629, but with only two recorded tests on the integrated side versus eight on the dedicated side, that average is thinner evidence than the direct head-to-head result.

The overall record stands at one win for the RX 6600S and zero for the 740M. The 740M's case rests not on benchmarks but on platform: half the TDP, a 4 nm RDNA 3.0 design, active production status, and the simplicity of an integrated solution that shares the system's memory rather than requiring its own.