AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT vs AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two AMD RDNA 2.0 parts, but the decision is not purely about raw score supremacy. The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT wins 10 of 11 head-to-head tests, with an average benchmark score of 26011 compared to the RX 6600 XT's 24442. The RX 6750 XT holds a 6.4% advantage in average score, and its percentile ranking of 71 versus 70 places both cards in the same general performance tier among all GPUs. However, the RX 6600 XT's single victory in Geekbench OpenCL is a massive outlier, winning by 79.7%, which suggests a workload-specific strength rather than a general pattern. For buyers prioritizing consistent DirectX performance, the RX 6750 XT is the data-backed choice. For those who value a smaller physical footprint, lower power draw, and a specific compute workload advantage, the RX 6600 XT remains relevant despite its older release date. The RX 6750 XT's launch MSRP is 549 USD; the RX 6600 XT's launch MSRP is 379 USD. The data does not indicate that the higher price buys a proportional leap in every metric, but the RX 6750 XT's wins in modern API tests are decisive.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the RDNA 2.0 architecture and are fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process, but their silicon implementations diverge significantly. The RX 6750 XT uses the Navi 22 chip with a die size of 335 mm² and 17,200 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 51.3M per mm². The RX 6600 XT uses the smaller Navi 23 chip, measuring 237 mm² with 11,060 million transistors and a density of 46.7M per mm². This physical difference translates directly into resource counts: the RX 6750 XT has 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 40 ray tracing cores, while the RX 6600 XT has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 RT cores. Both cards have 64 ROPs, meaning pixel fill rates are nearly identical — 166.4 GPixel/s for the RX 6750 XT versus 165.7 GPixel/s for the RX 6600 XT.

Memory configuration is another major differentiator. The RX 6750 XT carries 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, producing 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6600 XT has 8 GB on a 128-bit bus, yielding 256.0 GB/s. Effective memory speed is 18 Gbps for the larger card and 16 Gbps for the smaller one. Clock speeds also favor the RX 6750 XT: base 2150 MHz, boost 2600 MHz, and game clock 2495 MHz, versus 1968 MHz base, 2589 MHz boost, and 2359 MHz game for the RX 6600 XT. These clocks contribute to a compute throughput gap — the RX 6750 XT delivers 13.31 TFLOPS FP32 and 26.62 TFLOPS FP16, while the RX 6600 XT delivers 10.60 TFLOPS FP32 and 21.21 TFLOPS FP16.

The power envelope differs substantially: the RX 6750 XT has a 250 W TDP with a 600 W suggested PSU and requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, whereas the RX 6600 XT has a 160 W TDP with a 450 W suggested PSU and a single 8-pin connector. Physical dimensions also separate them — the RX 6750 XT is 267 mm long, while the RX 6600 XT is 190 mm. Both are dual-slot cards with identical height (110 mm) and width (40 mm). The RX 6750 XT uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface, while the RX 6600 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, with identical display outputs of 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6750 XT dominates across nearly every benchmark category, but the margins vary by workload. The largest win for the RX 6750 XT is in Geekbench Metal, where it scores 137249 against 88720 — a 54.7% advantage that suggests a strong lead in Apple's Metal API environment. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RX 6750 XT scores 2548 versus 1804, a 41.2% margin that indicates a substantial lead in modern DirectX 12 gaming workloads. PassMark DirectX 9 shows a 35.6% lead (263 vs 194), and Geekbench Vulkan shows a 35.5% lead (98089 vs 72417). These are the biggest gaps, all favoring the RX 6750 XT.

The RX 6600 XT's sole win is in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 80503 versus 16360 — an extraordinary 79.7% margin. This is not a small edge; it is a near-total reversal of the expected hierarchy. No other benchmark in the data set shows a comparable divergence, and the result suggests that the RX 6600 XT's OpenCL implementation is exceptionally well-optimized relative to its other metrics. For compute workloads that rely on OpenCL, the RX 6600 XT is clearly the better performer.

In the remaining tests, the RX 6750 XT wins with smaller but consistent margins: PassMark G3D is 20700 versus 16461 (25.8%), PassMark GPU Compute is 9550 versus 7520 (27%), PassMark DirectX 12 is 80 versus 61 (31.1%), PassMark DirectX 11 is 180 versus 163 (10.4%), PassMark DirectX 10 is 125 versus 109 (14.7%), and PassMark G2D is 972 versus 912 (6.6%). The G2D margin is the smallest, indicating that 2D desktop workloads are nearly a wash. The DirectX 11 and DirectX 10 margins are moderate, suggesting that older API workloads do not fully exploit the RX 6750 XT's additional compute resources.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT has 432.0 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the RX 6600 XT's 256.0 GB/s. This is driven by a 192-bit bus versus a 128-bit bus, and 18 Gbps effective memory speed versus 16 Gbps.

Q: Is the RX 6750 XT always faster than the RX 6600 XT?

A: No. The RX 6750 XT wins 10 of 11 head-to-head benchmarks, but the RX 6600 XT wins Geekbench OpenCL by a 79.7% margin (80503 vs 16360). In all other listed tests, the RX 6750 XT is faster.

Q: How do these cards compare in DirectX 12 performance?

A: In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RX 6750 XT scores 2548 versus the RX 6600 XT's 1804, a 41.2% lead. In PassMark DirectX 12, the RX 6750 XT scores 80 versus 61, a 31.1% lead.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The RX 6750 XT has a 250 W TDP and requires a 600 W suggested PSU, while the RX 6600 XT has a 160 W TDP and requires a 450 W suggested PSU. The RX 6750 XT uses 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors; the RX 6600 XT uses 1x 8-pin.

Q: Which card is better for compute workloads?

A: It depends on the API. For OpenCL, the RX 6600 XT is dramatically better (80503 vs 16360). For PassMark GPU Compute, the RX 6750 XT is better (9550 vs 7520, a 27% lead). For Metal, the RX 6750 XT leads by 54.7%.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both have 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the entire data set is Geekbench OpenCL. The RX 6600 XT scores 80503, while the RX 6750 XT manages only 16360. The delta is -79.7%, meaning the RX 6600 XT is nearly five times faster in this specific test. This is not a marginal difference; it is a categorical inversion of the two cards' relative standing. The result is so anomalous that it deserves scrutiny in any real-world deployment, but the data is unambiguous: for OpenCL compute, the RX 6600 XT is the superior part.

Conversely, Geekbench Metal shows the RX 6750 XT at 137249 versus 88720, a 54.7% lead. This is the largest win for the RX 6750 XT and indicates that its additional 512 shading units and higher clocks translate directly into Metal performance. The RX 6750 XT's 2560 shading units versus 2048, combined with a 2150 MHz base clock versus 1968 MHz, provide a substantial compute advantage that Metal appears to leverage fully.

In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RX 6750 XT scores 2548 against 1804, a 41.2% margin. This test is representative of modern DirectX 12 gaming, and the gap is consistent with the card's 25.6% higher FP32 throughput (13.31 TFLOPS vs 10.60 TFLOPS). The RX 6750 XT's higher boost clock of 2600 MHz versus 2589 MHz is a minor factor, but the larger chip with more TMUs (160 vs 128) drives most of the performance difference in texture-heavy workloads.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a 35.5% lead for the RX 6750 XT (98089 vs 72417). The Vulkan API scales well with additional compute units, and the RX 6750 XT's 40 RT cores versus 32 provide a structural advantage for ray-traced workloads. PassMark DirectX 9 shows a 35.6% lead (263 vs 194), which is notable because older APIs typically do not scale perfectly with newer hardware. The RX 6750 XT's higher pixel rate (166.4 GPixel/s vs 165.7 GPixel/s) is nearly identical, so the DirectX 9 win likely comes from texture and shading throughput rather than fill rate.

PassMark DirectX 12 shows a 31.1% lead (80 vs 61), and PassMark GPU Compute shows a 27% lead (9550 vs 7520). The DirectX 12 margin is smaller than 3DMark's DX12 test, indicating that benchmark methodology matters. PassMark DirectX 11 shows a 10.4% lead (180 vs 163), which is modest and suggests that the RX 6600 XT remains competitive in legacy DirectX 11 titles. PassMark DirectX 10 shows a 14.7% lead (125 vs 109), and PassMark G2D shows a 6.6% lead (972 vs 912) — the smallest margin in the entire set, confirming that 2D performance is nearly identical.

PassMark G3D shows a 25.8% lead (20700 vs 16461), which aligns closely with the average benchmark score difference of 6.4% when accounting for the OpenCL outlier. The RX 6750 XT's wins are consistent across the board, but the magnitude varies from 6.6% to 54.7%. The card's largest advantages appear in modern APIs (Metal, Vulkan, DX12) and its smallest in legacy APIs (DX10, DX11) and 2D workloads. The RX 6600 XT's single OpenCL win is the only counterpoint, but its magnitude is so large that it cannot be dismissed as noise. For most users, the RX 6750 XT is the stronger performer; for OpenCL-specific compute tasks, the RX 6600 XT is the only rational choice.