AMD Radeon RX 6500M vs AMD Radeon RX 6600S Comparison

Both AMD parts sit in the same Radeon RX 6000 series family, but the benchmark data draws a clear line between them. The RX 6600S wins every single head-to-head test in the database, making the comparison less about "which is better" and more about "how much better, and for whom." The RX 6500M is not without merit, but its role is strictly defined by efficiency and portability, not raw performance. This analysis breaks down the numbers across all eight recorded benchmarks, the architectural decisions behind them, and what the data means for a potential buyer.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the RX 6600S wins all 8 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the RX 6500M wins 0. There is no workload category in the FACT PACK where the RX 6500M takes the lead. The RX 6600S dominates across every generation of DirectX testing, compute workloads, and even 2D graphics tests. The largest margin comes in legacy DirectX 9, where the RX 6600S scores 176 versus 92 for the RX 6500M, a 91.3% advantage. The smallest margin is in DirectX 11, still a decisive 50% lead (105 versus 70).

For the RX 6500M, its only "win" is conceptual: it is the more power-efficient option. The data shows a 50 W TDP for the RX 6500M against 80 W for the RX 6600S, a 30 W difference. This makes the RX 6500M the logical choice for ultra-thin laptops where thermal headroom and battery life take priority over frame rates. In every benchmark that measures graphical or compute output, the RX 6600S is the clear victor, but that victory comes at a higher power cost.

The Verdict

Choose the RX 6600S if your priority is any form of graphics performance. The average benchmark score of 10629 for the RX 6600S sits above the 10362 average of the RX 6500M, and the head-to-head deltas are consistently above 50%. The RX 6600S also holds a higher percentile ranking (49th) compared to the RX 6500M (48th), though both are near the middle of the GPU distribution. It is the only option here for gamers or creators who want playable frame rates in modern titles, as its DirectX 12 score of 56 is 64.7% higher than the RX 6500M's 34.

Choose the RX 6500M strictly for power-constrained systems. Its 50 W TDP is 37.5% lower than the RX 6600S's 80 W, and its smaller die (107 mm² versus 237 mm²) means it is physically cheaper to integrate into compact designs. However, the data does not support choosing it for performance reasons. The RX 6500M's best showing is in Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 43837, but that test has no RX 6600S comparison in the head-to-head set. In every comparable test, the RX 6600S is faster, often by a wide margin. The verdict is simple: performance buyers take the RX 6600S; efficiency buyers take the RX 6500M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 6600S scores 66435 against 38586 for the RX 6500M, a 72.2% delta. This is not a small gap; it is a generational chasm in compute throughput. The RX 6600S's FP32 performance of 7.168 TFLOPS versus 4.915 TFLOPS for the RX 6500M explains a large part of this, but the memory bandwidth difference is also critical. The RX 6600S has a 128-bit bus delivering 224.0 GB/s, while the RX 6500M is constrained to a 64-bit bus and 144.0 GB/s. That 80 GB/s gap is the difference between fluid textures and stuttering.

In DirectX 12, the modern gaming API, the RX 6600S scores 56 versus 34, a 64.7% lead. This is the most relevant test for current AAA titles. The RX 6600S also wins in DirectX 10 by 55.8% (81 versus 52) and DirectX 11 by 50% (105 versus 70). The legacy DirectX 9 test shows the biggest percentage gap at 91.3% (176 versus 92), which suggests the RX 6600S handles older titles and their simpler rendering paths far more effectively, likely due to its higher texture fill rate of 224.0 GTexel/s versus 153.6 GTexel/s.

Compute performance follows the same pattern. The Passmark GPU Compute score for the RX 6600S is 4879, a massive 82.8% jump over the RX 6500M's 2669. This matters for non-gaming workloads like video encoding or GPU-accelerated rendering. Even the 2D test, which measures desktop responsiveness and basic compositing, shows a 68.1% advantage for the RX 6600S (647 versus 385). The only benchmark where the RX 6500M is competitive is in the overall averages, where it trails by just 2.5% (10362 versus 10629), but that is only because the RX 6500M has an additional Vulkan score that boosts its average.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600S has an average benchmark score of 10629, while the AMD Radeon RX 6500M scores 10362.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in any single test?

A: The largest gap is in the Passmark DirectX 9 test, where the RX 6600S scores 176 versus 92 for the RX 6500M, a delta of 91.3%.

Q: Is the RX 6500M more power-efficient?

A: Yes, the RX 6500M has a TDP of 50 W, which is 30 W lower than the RX 6600S's 80 W TDP.

Q: Does the RX 6500M win any benchmark tests?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark data, the RX 6600S wins all 8 tests, and the RX 6500M wins 0.

Q: What memory bus width does each card use?

A: The RX 6600S uses a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX 6500M uses a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 6500M has a higher boost clock at 2400 MHz, compared to 2000 MHz for the RX 6600S, despite the latter having higher overall performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different process nodes and chips, which explains much of the performance divergence. The RX 6600S uses the Navi 23 chip on a 7 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 237 mm² and 11,060 million transistors. The RX 6500M uses the smaller Navi 24 chip on a 6 nm TSMC process, with a die of 107 mm² and only 5,400 million transistors. The RX 6600S has a transistor density of 46.7M per mm², while the RX 6500M is denser at 50.5M per mm², but the sheer size difference means the RX 6600S has twice the transistor count.

Core configuration heavily favors the RX 6600S. It has 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, versus 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs on the RX 6500M. Ray tracing cores also differ: 28 on the RX 6600S versus 16 on the RX 6500M. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, but the RX 6600S's larger core count translates to a pixel rate of 128.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 224.0 GTexel/s, both roughly double the RX 6500M's 76.80 GPixel/s and 153.6 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. The RX 6600S has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6500M also has 4 GB of GDDR6, but on a 64-bit bus, halving the bandwidth to 144.0 GB/s. The RX 6500M compensates with faster memory clocks (2250 MHz versus 1750 MHz) and a higher boost clock (2400 MHz versus 2000 MHz), but these cannot overcome the bus width disadvantage. The RX 6600S also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the RX 6500M is limited to x4, which can impact data transfer in memory-constrained scenarios.

Both cards are integrated into laptops ("IGP" slot width) with no power connectors, and both are end-of-life products with the same release date. The RX 6600S offers higher raw throughput in every measurable way, while the RX 6500M trades that throughput for a lower power draw and a physically smaller chip, making it a niche part for ultraportable gaming machines rather than a performance alternative.