AMD Radeon R9 M290X vs AMD Radeon RX 6600M Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M290X and AMD Radeon RX 6600M are separated by over seven years of architectural evolution, yet their average benchmark scores place them almost exactly level. The R9 M290X averages 23,276 points, while the RX 6600M averages 23,273 points — a difference of just 0.01%, with the older card technically leading by a hair. However, this headline parity is deceptive; the RX 6600M dominates in every direct head-to-head test, achieving scores that are 73.4% and 67.5% higher in Metal and OpenCL workloads respectively. The data suggests that the R9 M290X’s average is buoyed by a narrower benchmark suite, while the RX 6600M’s broader testing reveals a far more capable GPU. Both cards occupy the 68th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they sit at the same rank in the overall distribution, but their real-world performance profiles could not be more different.

The Verdict

The RX 6600M is the clear choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute and modern API support. In Geekbench Metal, it scores 92,237 versus the R9 M290X’s 24,524 — a 276% advantage in absolute terms, reflected in the -73.4% delta from the older card’s perspective. In OpenCL, the RX 6600M’s 67,765 score crushes the R9 M290X’s 22,028, a 207% lead. If your workload leverages Metal or OpenCL, the RX 6600M is not just better; it is in a different performance class.

The R9 M290X, conversely, has no benchmark victories. Its wins in the comparison are zero against the RX 6600M’s two. However, its average score remains competitive because its two recorded tests (Metal and OpenCL) both fall in a similar range, whereas the RX 6600M’s average is dragged down by other tests like PassMark DirectX 10 (87 points) and DirectX 9 (184 points). The R9 M290X’s narrow test set masks its age; it does not face the same DX12 or Vulkan stresses that the RX 6600M handles. For legacy compatibility or older software that does not use modern APIs, the R9 M290X may still function, but the data offers no scenario where it outperforms the RX 6600M. Strictly from the numbers, the RX 6600M is the superior part, and the R9 M290X should only be considered if its specific API support (DirectX 12 11_1, Vulkan 1.2.170) matches your exact software requirements and you cannot use the newer card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M290X has an average benchmark score of 23,276, while the AMD Radeon RX 6600M scores 23,273. The difference is 3 points, or 0%, with the R9 M290X nominally ahead.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench Metal performance?

A: The RX 6600M scores 92,237, which is 73.4% higher than the R9 M290X’s 24,524. The RX 6600M wins this test decisively.

Q: Is the RX 6600M faster in OpenCL compute?

A: Yes. The RX 6600M records 67,765 in Geekbench OpenCL, versus 22,028 for the R9 M290X. The delta is -67.5% from the R9 M290X’s perspective, meaning the RX 6600M is roughly three times faster.

Q: Do both cards have the same percentile rank?

A: Yes, both the R9 M290X and RX 6600M are in the 68th percentile of all GPUs, indicating they rank similarly in the overall performance distribution.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to these cards?

A: Both cards list the same nearest rivals: the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 16 (avgScore 23,250, deltaPct 0.1), the NVIDIA P106-100 (avgScore 23,249, deltaPct 0.1), and the AMD Radeon AI PRO R9700 (avgScore 23,315, deltaPct -0.2). The R9 M290X and RX 6600M are within 0.2% of each other and these rivals.

Q: Does the R9 M290X win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head data, the R9 M290X has zero wins, while the RX 6600M has two wins (Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent radically different design philosophies from AMD. The R9 M290X uses the Neptune chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This older design packs 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The RX 6600M, in contrast, uses the Navi 23 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. This newer chip crams 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, achieving a density of 46.7 million per square millimeter — over 3.5 times denser.

The architectural generation gap is stark. The R9 M290X belongs to the "Gem System (R9 M200)" generation, while the RX 6600M is part of "Navi Mobile (RX 6000M)". The R9 M290X supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the RX 6600M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The newer card also includes 28 ray tracing cores, which the R9 M290X lacks entirely. Shader resources differ too: the R9 M290X has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs; the RX 6600M has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RX 6600M’s pixel rate of 154.6 GPixel/s and texture rate of 270.6 GTexel/s dwarf the R9 M290X’s 28.80 GPixel/s and 72.00 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance tells the same story: the RX 6600M delivers 8.659 TFLOPS FP32 and 17.32 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the R9 M290X manages only 2.304 TFLOPS FP32 with no FP16 data listed. The RX 6600M’s memory is also newer — GDDR6 versus GDDR5 — and its bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 versus the R9 M290X’s PCIe 3.0 x16.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is process node: 28 nm for the R9 M290X versus 7 nm for the RX 6600M. Transistor count jumps from 2,800 million to 11,060 million, and die size grows slightly from 212 mm² to 237 mm². Clock speeds are far apart: the R9 M290X runs at 850 MHz base and 900 MHz boost, while the RX 6600M runs at 2068 MHz base, 2177 MHz game clock, and 2416 MHz boost. Memory capacity doubles from 4 GB to 8 GB, and type advances from GDDR5 to GDDR6. Bus width actually shrinks from 256 bit to 128 bit, but effective memory speed rises from 4.8 Gbps to 14 Gbps, pushing bandwidth from 153.6 GB/s to 224.0 GB/s. The R9 M290X has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the RX 6600M has 1,792, 112, and 64 respectively. The RX 6600M adds 28 ray tracing cores. Pixel rate increases from 28.80 to 154.6 GPixel/s; texture rate from 72.00 to 270.6 GTexel/s; FP32 from 2.304 to 8.659 TFLOPS. Both have a 100 W TDP, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The R9 M290X uses an MXM Module slot, while the RX 6600M is an IGP. The R9 M290X supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170; the RX 6600M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. Release dates differ by over seven years: 2014-01-08 for the R9 M290X versus 2021-05-30 for the RX 6600M. Both are end-of-life, and neither has a listed launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data contains two tests, and the RX 6600M wins both by overwhelming margins. In Geekbench Metal, the RX 6600M scores 92,237 against the R9 M290X’s 24,524. The delta is -73.4%, meaning the R9 M290X’s score is only 26.6% of the RX 6600M’s. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6600M scores 67,765 versus 22,028, a delta of -67.5%. Again, the older card trails by roughly two-thirds. These deltas are computed from the R9 M290X’s score as the baseline, so the RX 6600M is 276% higher in Metal and 207% higher in OpenCL in absolute terms.

The wins tally is 0 for the R9 M290X and 2 for the RX 6600M. Despite this sweep, the average benchmark scores are nearly identical (23,276 vs 23,273). This paradox arises because the R9 M290X’s average is derived from only its two tested workloads, both of which are compute-heavy. The RX 6600M’s average includes 11 tests, several of which (PassMark DirectX 10 at 87, DirectX 12 at 52, and DirectX 9 at 184) pull its average down, even though its peak scores are far higher. The RX 6600M also shows strong PassMark G3D (13,929) and GPU Compute (5,646) results, plus a Geekbench Vulkan score of 73,740, which the R9 M290X cannot match since it lacks a Vulkan benchmark entry. The R9 M290X’s average is thus an artifact of limited testing, not a measure of true parity.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6600M wins everywhere the data measures. In compute-heavy APIs like Metal and OpenCL, it is 73.4% and 67.5% ahead, respectively. Its Vulkan score of 73,740 and DirectX 12 Ultimate support indicate a GPU built for modern gaming and workloads. Its 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth doubles the capacity and provides 46% more bandwidth than the R9 M290X’s 153.6 GB/s. The presence of 28 ray tracing cores makes it the only choice for hardware-accelerated ray tracing. Its higher pixel and texture rates (154.6 GPixel/s and 270.6 GTexel/s) suggest better fill-rate-bound performance, and its FP32 throughput of 8.659 TFLOPS is 3.76 times that of the R9 M290X. For any application that uses modern APIs, the RX 6600M is the clear winner.

The R9 M290X has no benchmark wins, so it cannot claim a performance advantage in any tested scenario. Its only theoretical strengths are qualitative: it uses an MXM Module form factor, which may fit certain legacy laptop chassis, and it supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is sufficient for older titles. Its 4 GB GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus are dated but might suffice for less demanding software. However, the data shows no test where it beats the RX 6600M. Its average score parity with the RX 6600M is purely a function of its narrow test suite. If a workload does not use Metal or OpenCL — for instance, a legacy DirectX 11 application — the R9 M290X’s performance is simply unmeasured, but the RX 6600M still has a PassMark DirectX 11 score of 136 to reference. In every measurable way, the RX 6600M is the superior GPU. The R9 M290X’s only plausible use case is as a drop-in replacement in a system that physically requires an MXM module and cannot accommodate an IGP, but even then, the performance gap is enormous.