AMD Radeon RX 6600 vs AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL Comparison

AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL and AMD Radeon RX 6600 represent two very different generations of AMD graphics silicon, separated by architecture, process node, and intended use case. The RX Vega M GL is an integrated part from the Vega M family, built for compact systems, while the RX 6600 is a discrete, dual-slot add-in board from the Radeon RX 6000 series. The recorded data shows a clear performance gap, but the specifics of that gap, along with architectural differences, define which part belongs in which kind of system.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct head-to-head results between these GPUs, both in Geekbench compute workloads. The RX 6600 wins both, and does so by a substantial margin.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX Vega M GL scores 19,549 points, while the RX 6600 scores 28,850 points. That puts the RX 6600 ahead by 32.2%. This is a large delta, but it is the smaller of the two gaps recorded. OpenCL is a general compute API, and the RX Vega M GL’s GCN architecture still handles it reasonably well relative to its class, but the RX 6600’s higher raw throughput and modern RDNA 2 design pull far ahead.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens dramatically. The RX Vega M GL scores 22,757 points, while the RX 6600 scores 67,623 points. That is a 66.3% advantage for the RX 6600. Vulkan is a low-level, driver-efficient API, and here the RX 6600’s RDNA 2 architecture shows clear superiority. The RX 6600 delivers nearly three times the Vulkan score of the RX Vega M GL. This result suggests that the RX 6600 will scale much better in modern games and applications that leverage Vulkan, which is a common feature in current titles and emulators.

Across both recorded tests, the RX 6600 wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head matchups. The RX Vega M GL records zero wins in the direct comparison. The average benchmark score for the RX Vega M GL, across all its tests, is 21,153 points. The RX 6600’s average is 19,036 points, which is actually lower than the RX Vega M GL’s average. This is an important nuance: the RX 6600 has a broader benchmark suite recorded, including Passmark tests that pull its average down. The direct head-to-head tests, however, are unambiguous in favor of the RX 6600.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the RX Vega M GL sits at the 66th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 21,153. Its closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 8970M, which scores 21,237, a delta of -0.4%, meaning the RX Vega M GL is essentially tied with that older mobile part. It is also within 2.1% of the AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT, which scores 20,713. The RX 6600, meanwhile, sits at the 63rd percentile, with an average of 19,036. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K6000, scores 19,030, a 0% delta. The RX 6600 is also within 0.4% of the NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation (18,954). This means that while the RX 6600 wins the head-to-head decisively, its broader average is dragged down by low Passmark scores, which may reflect driver overhead or specific test conditions, not raw gaming capability.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures with different foundries and process nodes. The RX Vega M GL uses the Polaris 22 chip, based on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 5,000 million transistors into a die size of 208 mm², giving a transistor density of 24.0 million per mm². The RX 6600 uses the Navi 23 chip, based on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It contains 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 46.7 million per mm². The RX 6600 nearly doubles the transistor density, which is a direct result of the more advanced 7 nm node.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The RX Vega M GL runs at a base clock of 931 MHz and a boost clock of 1,011 MHz. The RX 6600 runs at a base clock of 1,626 MHz and a boost of 2,491 MHz, with a game clock of 2,044 MHz. The RX 6600’s boost clock is more than double the RX Vega M GL’s boost clock. This alone explains a large portion of the performance gap, even before considering architectural efficiency.

Memory configurations are also very different. The RX Vega M GL uses 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus, with a memory clock of 700 MHz (1,400 Mbps effective) and bandwidth of 179.2 GB/s. The RX 6600 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. Despite the narrower bus, the RX 6600 has higher memory bandwidth and double the capacity. The HBM2 on the RX Vega M GL is unusual for an integrated part, but the older memory type and lower clock speed limit its effectiveness.

Compute resources favor the RX 6600 heavily. The RX Vega M GL has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The RX 6600 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RX 6600 also has 28 ray tracing cores, a feature the RX Vega M GL lacks entirely. Pixel rate for the RX Vega M GL is 32.35 GPixel/s, while the RX 6600 achieves 159.4 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 80.88 GTexel/s for the RX Vega M GL versus 279.0 GTexel/s for the RX 6600. FP32 throughput is 2.588 TFLOPS for the RX Vega M GL and 8.928 TFLOPS for the RX 6600. The RX 6600 also supports FP16 at 17.86 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the RX Vega M GL only manages 2.588 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

API support differs as well. The RX Vega M GL supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The RX 6600 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6600’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support includes ray tracing and mesh shaders, which are absent on the older part. The RX 6600 also has a higher Vulkan version.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6600 wins in every recorded head-to-head benchmark, and the architectural data supports a broad advantage. In compute workloads, it is 32.2% ahead in OpenCL and 66.3% ahead in Vulkan. This translates to better performance in GPU-accelerated tasks like video encoding, machine learning inference, and 3D rendering that use these APIs. The RX 6600’s higher FP32 throughput (8.928 TFLOPS versus 2.588 TFLOPS) means it handles raw compute work much faster.

The RX 6600 also wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. With 8 GB versus 4 GB, it can handle larger textures and datasets without spilling to system memory. Its 224.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 179.2 GB/s further helps in bandwidth-bound scenarios like high-resolution gaming or large compute buffers. The presence of 28 ray tracing cores gives it a feature advantage in modern games that use ray-traced effects, where the RX Vega M GL has no hardware acceleration at all.

The RX Vega M GL, however, has one clear advantage: power consumption. Its TDP is 65 W, compared to 132 W for the RX 6600. This makes the RX Vega M GL suitable for systems with limited thermal and power budgets, such as thin-and-light laptops or compact all-in-one designs. The RX 6600 requires a dual-slot cooler, a 1x 8-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 300 W, while the RX Vega M GL is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no additional power connectors and a bus interface of IGP. The RX Vega M GL’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the host system’s outputs, while the RX 6600 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

The RX Vega M GL also has a smaller die (208 mm² versus 237 mm²) and fewer transistors (5,000 million versus 11,060 million), which in a purely integrated context means less complexity for the host system. Its 1024-bit memory bus is wider than the RX 6600’s 128-bit bus, which is a quirk of HBM2 versus GDDR6, but the effective bandwidth is lower.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Radeon RX 6600 is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark. It wins both head-to-head tests, with a 32.2% lead in OpenCL and a 66.3% lead in Vulkan. Its architectural advantages are overwhelming: more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, ray tracing cores, higher clocks, more memory, higher bandwidth, and a more modern process node. If you are building a desktop system with room for a dual-slot card and a 300 W PSU, the RX 6600 is the obvious choice for gaming, compute, and any modern workload.

The RX Vega M GL, however, is not without purpose. Its 65 W TDP and IGP form factor make it the only option for systems where a discrete card is impossible. It is an end-of-life part from 2018, and its performance, while respectable for its class (66th percentile), is nowhere near the RX 6600. The RX 6600 is also end-of-life, but from 2021, and it sits in the 63rd percentile, with a lower average score only because of its broader test suite.

Who should pick which? If your system has a PCIe slot and can accommodate a 190 mm long, 110 mm tall, 40 mm wide dual-slot card, the RX 6600 is the answer. If you are constrained to an integrated GPU with no upgrade path, the RX Vega M GL is what you have, and it is acceptable for light gaming and general compute. But from a pure performance standpoint, there is no contest. The RX 6600 is the part to choose, and the RX Vega M GL is a legacy component that should only be considered when the form factor demands it.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL has a higher average benchmark score of 21,153 points, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 6600’s 19,036 points. However, this is because the RX 6600 has a much larger set of recorded tests, including low Passmark scores, while the RX Vega M GL only has two Geekbench results.

Q: How much faster is the RX 6600 in Vulkan?

A: The RX 6600 scores 67,623 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 66.3% higher than the RX Vega M GL’s score of 22,757. This is the largest performance gap recorded between the two.

Q: Does the RX Vega M GL support ray tracing?

A: No. The RX Vega M GL has no ray tracing cores listed in the database. The RX 6600 has 28 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing features.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX Vega M GL has 179.2 GB/s of bandwidth using HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus. The RX 6600 has 224.0 GB/s using GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The RX 6600 has higher bandwidth and double the memory capacity (8 GB versus 4 GB).

Q: Which GPU has a lower power draw?

A: The RX Vega M GL has a TDP of 65 W, while the RX 6600 has a TDP of 132 W. The RX Vega M GL is an integrated part with no power connectors, while the RX 6600 requires a 1x 8-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The RX Vega M GL was released on 2018-01-31, and the RX 6600 was released on 2021-10-12.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs. The RX 6600 uses a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the RX Vega M GL uses 14 nm at GlobalFoundries. Transistor count is 11,060 million versus 5,000 million, and die size is 237 mm² versus 208 mm². Transistor density is 46.7M / mm² versus 24.0M / mm².

Clocks: The RX 6600 has a base clock of 1,626 MHz, boost of 2,491 MHz, and game clock of 2,044 MHz. The RX Vega M GL has a base of 931 MHz and boost of 1,011 MHz. Memory clock is 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for the RX 6600 versus 700 MHz (1,400 Mbps effective) for the RX Vega M GL.

Memory: The RX 6600 has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX Vega M GL has 4 GB of HBM2 on a 1024-bit bus with 179.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: The RX 6600 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RX Vega M GL has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6600 has 28 ray tracing cores; the RX Vega M GL has none.

Rates: Pixel rate is 159.4 GPixel/s for the RX 6600 versus 32.35 GPixel/s for the RX Vega M GL. Texture rate is 279.0 GTexel/s versus 80.88 GTexel/s. FP32 is 8.928 TFLOPS versus 2.588 TFLOPS. FP16 is 17.86 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 2.588 TFLOPS (1:1).

Power and form: TDP is 132 W for the RX 6600 versus 65 W for the RX Vega M GL. The RX 6600 is dual-slot with a 1x 8-pin connector and 300 W suggested PSU, while the RX Vega M GL is IGP with no connectors and no suggested PSU. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RX 6600 versus IGP for the RX Vega M GL. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RX 6600 versus "Portable Device Dependent" for the RX Vega M GL.

Dimensions: The RX 6600 is 190 mm long, 110 mm high, and 40 mm wide. The RX Vega M GL has no recorded dimensions.

API support: DirectX is 12 Ultimate (12_2) for the RX 6600 versus 12 (12_0) for the RX Vega M GL. Vulkan is 1.4 versus 1.3. OpenGL is 4.6 for both.

Launch MSRP for the RX 6600 was 329 USD. The RX Vega M GL has no recorded launch MSRP.