AMD Radeon RX 5600M vs AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE compare to the AMD Radeon RX 5600M in raw benchmark scores?

A: The RX 6600 LE holds a decisive lead in the recorded head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 69,229 versus 59,589 for the RX 5600M, a 16.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens dramatically: 72,428 versus 48,843, a 48.3% lead.

Q: What do the percentile rankings indicate about each card?

A: The RX 6600 LE sits at the 91st percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 5600M is at the 85th percentile. The RX 6600 LE's average benchmark score of 70,829 places it well above the RX 5600M's 46,601, reinforcing its higher standing in the database.

Q: Which card has the higher boost clock, and what is the difference?

A: The RX 6600 LE has a boost clock of 2495 MHz, while the RX 5600M boosts to only 1265 MHz. That is a substantial 1230 MHz difference, which helps explain the RX 6600 LE's superior compute throughput.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The RX 6600 LE packs 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5600M has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a wider 192-bit bus, achieving 288.0 GB/s. So the RX 5600M has more bandwidth, but the RX 6600 LE has more capacity.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates for each card?

A: The RX 6600 LE achieves a pixel rate of 159.7 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 279.4 GTexel/s. The RX 5600M trails at 80.96 GPixel/s and 182.2 GTexel/s respectively, showing the RX 6600 LE's advantage in fill-rate-bound workloads.

Q: Which card supports hardware ray tracing?

A: Only the RX 6600 LE includes dedicated ray accelerators, with 28 RT cores. The RX 5600M has no RT cores listed, meaning it lacks hardware ray tracing support. The RX 6600 LE also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5600M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear pick for most users: the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE. It wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, carries a 91st percentile ranking versus 85th for the RX 5600M, and averages 70,829 in benchmark scores against 46,601. For anyone prioritizing compute performance, Vulkan workloads, or modern feature support like ray tracing, the RX 6600 LE is the stronger choice.

The RX 5600M, however, is not without its niche. Its 192-bit memory bus provides 288.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 28.6% higher than the RX 6600 LE's 224.0 GB/s. In bandwidth-sensitive scenarios, this could translate to a measurable advantage, though the benchmark data does not directly capture such a test. Additionally, the RX 5600M's status as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors suggests it may fit into more compact or power-constrained designs.

The verdict from the database is straightforward: the RX 6600 LE wins on compute, features, and overall percentile standing. The RX 5600M appeals only to those who specifically need higher memory bandwidth or an IGP form factor, but its end-of-life production status and lower average scores make it a harder recommendation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results show a dominant performance from the RX 6600 LE in both tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6600 LE scores 69,229 against the RX 5600M's 59,589, a 16.2% lead. This margin reflects the RX 6600 LE's higher shading unit efficiency: despite having 1,792 shading units versus 2,304 for the RX 5600M, the RX 6600 LE's much higher clocks (1626 MHz base, 2495 MHz boost versus 1035 MHz base, 1265 MHz boost) deliver more raw compute. The FP32 throughput tells the same story: 8.942 TFLOPS for the RX 6600 LE versus 5.829 TFLOPS for the RX 5600M, a 53.4% advantage.

The Vulkan test is where the RX 6600 LE truly separates itself. It scores 72,428, while the RX 5600M manages only 48,843. That is a 48.3% gap, the largest in the head-to-head data. This result likely reflects architectural differences: the RX 6600 LE uses RDNA 2.0 with 28 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, while the RX 5600M is RDNA 1.0 with no ray tracing and only DirectX 12 (12_1). Vulkan 1.4 is supported by both, but the newer architecture's driver and hardware optimizations seem to yield outsized gains.

The RX 5600M does have a counterpoint in memory bandwidth. Its 288.0 GB/s exceeds the RX 6600 LE's 224.0 GB/s, and its 192-bit bus is wider than the 128-bit bus on the RX 6600 LE. However, no head-to-head benchmark in the database captures this advantage, so its practical impact remains unquantified. The wins tally stands at 2 for the RX 6600 LE and 0 for the RX 5600M.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge significantly across nearly every specification category. The RX 6600 LE has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the RX 5600M has 6 GB on a 192-bit bus. Bandwidth favors the RX 5600M at 288.0 GB/s versus 224.0 GB/s, but capacity favors the RX 6600 LE.

Clock speeds are starkly different: the RX 6600 LE runs at 1626 MHz base, 2495 MHz boost, and 2045 MHz game clock. The RX 5600M runs at 1035 MHz base, 1265 MHz boost, and 1190 MHz game clock. Memory clocks also differ: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the RX 6600 LE versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the RX 5600M.

Compute resources show an interesting inversion. The RX 5600M has more shading units (2,304 versus 1,792), more TMUs (144 versus 112), and the same number of ROPs (64). Yet the RX 6600 LE achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 159.7 GPixel/s versus 80.96 GPixel/s, and 279.4 GTexel/s versus 182.2 GTexel/s. The RX 6600 LE also leads in FP32 (8.942 TFLOPS versus 5.829 TFLOPS) and FP16 (17.88 TFLOPS versus 11.66 TFLOPS).

Power and physical specs differ too: the RX 6600 LE has a TDP of 132 W, a dual-slot design, and a 1x 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The RX 5600M has a TDP of 150 W, is listed as an IGP with no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU. The RX 6600 LE measures 190 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, while the RX 5600M has no recorded dimensions.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational. The RX 6600 LE is built on RDNA 2.0, part of the Navi II (RX 6000) generation, using the Navi 23 chip. The RX 5600M is RDNA 1.0, from the Navi Mobile (RX 5000M) generation, using the Navi 10 chip.

Both are manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ: 11,060 million for the RX 6600 LE versus 10,300 million for the RX 5600M. Die size also varies, 237 mm² for the RX 6600 LE versus 251 mm² for the RX 5600M, giving the RX 6600 LE a higher transistor density of 46.7M per mm² versus 41.0M per mm².

The most consequential architectural difference is ray tracing. The RX 6600 LE includes 28 dedicated RT cores, while the RX 5600M has none. This aligns with their DirectX support: the RX 6600 LE offers DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing and mesh shaders, while the RX 5600M is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Bus interface also differs: the RX 6600 LE uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. Display outputs reflect their intended use cases: the RX 6600 LE provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RX 5600M is listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Production status tells another story: the RX 6600 LE is still active, released on 2023-12-07, while the RX 5600M is end-of-life, released on 2020-07-06. The predecessor and successor lineage also differs: the RX 6600 LE follows Navi and precedes Navi III, while the RX 5600M follows Polaris Mobile with no successor listed.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6600 LE wins in nearly every measurable category. Its compute throughput is far superior, with 8.942 TFLOPS FP32 versus 5.829 TFLOPS for the RX 5600M. This translates to a 53.4% lead in raw floating-point performance. The pixel rate advantage (159.7 GPixel/s versus 80.96 GPixel/s) and texture rate advantage (279.4 GTexel/s versus 182.2 GTexel/s) mean it should excel in fill-rate-heavy games and applications.

The RX 6600 LE also wins in ray tracing, thanks to its 28 RT cores, and in modern API support with DirectX 12 Ultimate. Its higher boost clock (2495 MHz versus 1265 MHz) and larger memory capacity (8 GB versus 6 GB) give it advantages in resolution-heavy workloads and larger texture sets. The benchmark data confirms this: it wins Geekbench OpenCL by 16.2% and Geekbench Vulkan by 48.3%.

The RX 5600M has one clear statistical advantage: memory bandwidth. Its 288.0 GB/s exceeds the RX 6600 LE's 224.0 GB/s by 28.6%. This comes from a wider 192-bit bus, which could benefit workloads that are bandwidth-bound, such as high-resolution compute or certain data-intensive tasks. It also has more shading units (2,304 versus 1,792) and more TMUs (144 versus 112), though the RX 6600 LE's clock advantage more than compensates in practice.

The RX 5600M's IGP form factor and lack of power connectors make it suitable for integrated or low-profile designs, whereas the RX 6600 LE requires a dual-slot space and an 8-pin connector. For users prioritizing bandwidth or needing an IGP, the RX 5600M has a niche. For everyone else, the RX 6600 LE's benchmark wins, higher percentile, and active production status make it the clear choice.