AMD Radeon R9 370X vs AMD Radeon RX 6600 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6600 wins every head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database. The most dramatic gap appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 6600 scores 67,623 against the R9 370X's 9,018, a delta of 649.9%. This is not a marginal improvement; it represents a generational leap in API-level performance, reflecting the RX 6600's modern architecture and driver maturity.

Geekbench Metal shows a similar story, albeit with a slightly smaller percentage gap. The RX 6600 posts 88,398, while the R9 370X manages 12,676, resulting in a 597.4% advantage. This test is particularly relevant for users on Apple platforms or those leveraging Metal-based compute workloads. The RX 6600's score here is over seven times higher, indicating vastly superior raw compute throughput in this specific API.

The closest contest is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 6600 scores 28,850 versus the R9 370X's 25,893, a lead of 11.4%. While still a clear win, this smaller margin suggests that in pure OpenCL compute, the older GCN architecture holds up better relative to its own generation than it does in newer APIs. However, the RX 6600 still takes the victory, and the absolute difference of nearly 3,000 points is substantial.

Overall, the head-to-head record stands at 3 wins for the RX 6600 and 0 for the R9 370X. The average benchmark score reinforces this: the RX 6600 averages 19,036 points across all recorded tests, while the R9 370X averages 15,862. This places the RX 6600 in the 63rd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the R9 370X's 58th percentile. In practical terms, the RX 6600 is not just faster; it is in a different performance class.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different eras of AMD's GPU design. The RX 6600 uses the Navi 23 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The R9 370X uses the Trinidad chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. This process node difference is the single largest architectural divider: 7 nm versus 28 nm means the RX 6600 packs 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7 million per square millimeter. The R9 370X, by contrast, contains only 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, for a density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The RX 6600 fits nearly four times as many transistors into a similar physical area.

The compute resources reflect this density advantage. The RX 6600 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, plus 28 dedicated ray tracing cores. The R9 370X has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, with no ray tracing hardware at all. Pixel rate tells the story: the RX 6600 achieves 159.4 GPixel/s versus the R9 370X's 32.96 GPixel/s. Texture rate is similarly lopsided at 279.0 GTexel/s versus 82.40 GTexel/s. Floating point performance (FP32) is 8.928 TFLOPS for the RX 6600 and 2.637 TFLOPS for the R9 370X.

API support also differs drastically. The RX 6600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The R9 370X supports only DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. This means the RX 6600 can run the latest DirectX 12 Ultimate features, including hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders, while the R9 370X is limited to older feature levels. The R9 370X also lacks any FP16 acceleration, while the RX 6600 delivers 17.86 TFLOPS FP16 performance using a 2:1 ratio, which benefits AI and compute workloads that use reduced precision.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6600 wins everywhere the data records a comparison. There is no benchmark category where the R9 370X comes out ahead. The most pronounced wins for the RX 6600 are in modern APIs: Vulkan and Metal. For users running games or applications that use Vulkan, the RX 6600's 649.9% lead means the R9 370X is effectively obsolete. The same applies to Metal-based workloads, where the 597.4% gap is nearly as large.

The OpenCL result is the only area where the R9 370X shows relative competitiveness. Its score of 25,893 is within 11.4% of the RX 6600's 28,850. This suggests that for legacy OpenCL compute tasks, the older card can still participate, though it will finish slower. However, this narrow margin does not translate into a practical win for the R9 370X; it simply means the gap is smaller than elsewhere.

The RX 6600's additional benchmark results, which the R9 370X lacks entirely, further solidify its position. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RX 6600 scores 1,492. In Passmark tests, it scores 15,096 in G3D, 95 in DirectX 10, 152 in DirectX 11, 51 in DirectX 12, 197 in DirectX 9, 889 in G2D, and 6,554 in GPU compute. These results indicate broad competence across legacy and modern DirectX workloads, whereas the R9 370X has no recorded scores in these tests.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification field. The RX 6600 has a base clock of 1626 MHz, a boost clock of 2491 MHz, and a game clock of 2044 MHz. The R9 370X has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, with no game clock recorded. Memory configuration differs significantly: the RX 6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth with a memory clock of 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The R9 370X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 179.2 GB/s with a memory clock of 1400 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective). The RX 6600 has four times the memory capacity, though on a narrower bus, its bandwidth is still 25% higher.

Power and connectivity also diverge. The RX 6600 has a TDP of 132 W, requires a single 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. The R9 370X has a TDP of 180 W, requires two 6-pin connectors, and suggests a 450 W PSU. The RX 6600 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the R9 370X uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the RX 6600 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R9 370X offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Physical dimensions are close, with the RX 6600 at 190 mm length, 110 mm height, and 40 mm width, versus the R9 370X at 221 mm length and 111 mm height (width not recorded). Both are dual-slot cards. The RX 6600 was released on 2021-10-12, while the R9 370X was released on 2015-08-26. Both are marked as end-of-life production status. The RX 6600's launch MSRP is 329 USD, and the R9 370X's is 199 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better raw compute performance?

A: The RX 6600. Its FP32 throughput is 8.928 TFLOPS versus 2.637 TFLOPS for the R9 370X, a more than threefold advantage. The RX 6600 also supports FP16 compute at 17.86 TFLOPS, while the R9 370X has no recorded FP16 capability.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The RX 6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 370X has 2 GB of GDDR5 with 179.2 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6600 provides more capacity and higher bandwidth, despite using a 128-bit bus versus the R9 370X's 256-bit bus.

Q: Is the R9 370X competitive in any API?

A: The closest result is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the R9 370X scores 25,893 versus the RX 6600's 28,850, a gap of 11.4%. In all other head-to-head tests, the RX 6600 leads by hundreds of percentage points.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The RX 6600 has a 132 W TDP and requires a single 8-pin connector with a 300 W suggested PSU. The R9 370X has a 180 W TDP and requires two 6-pin connectors with a 450 W suggested PSU. The newer card is more power-efficient.

Q: Does the RX 6600 support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The RX 6600 has 28 dedicated ray tracing cores, part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture. The R9 370X has no ray tracing hardware, as it predates that feature.

Q: What is the interface difference?

A: The RX 6600 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R9 370X uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The RX 6600's newer interface provides higher bandwidth per lane, and the x8 configuration is sufficient for its performance level.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6600 is the superior card in every measured category. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (19,036 versus 15,862), and sits in a higher percentile (63rd versus 58th). The RX 6600's advantages are not incremental; they are generational. Its 7 nm RDNA 2.0 architecture delivers over three times the FP32 performance, four times the memory capacity, and higher bandwidth than the 28 nm GCN 1.0 R9 370X. It also adds ray tracing support, newer API versions (DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4), and lower power consumption (132 W versus 180 W).

For users choosing between these two, the RX 6600 is the only rational pick for any modern workload. Its Vulkan and Metal leads of 649.9% and 597.4% respectively mean the R9 370X cannot handle contemporary graphics APIs at competitive levels. Even in OpenCL, where the R9 370X comes closest, the RX 6600 still wins by 11.4%. The R9 370X's only advantages are its lower launch MSRP (199 USD versus 329 USD) and its longer physical length (221 mm versus 190 mm), but these do not offset the performance chasm. The RX 6600 is the card for gamers, content creators, and compute users; the R9 370X should be considered only for legacy systems or very specific OpenCL tasks where its older API support is acceptable.