AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630: the data shows a decisive generational and architectural gap, with the AMD card leading by massive margins in every direct benchmark where both were measured. The RX 6600 XT’s average benchmark score of 24,442 sits just 0.7% above the GTX 1630’s 24,277, but that aggregate figure hides the fact that the two cards were tested across very different suites—the GTX 1630 only has two recorded results, while the RX 6600 XT has eleven. When both cards run the same workload, the RX 6600 XT is not merely faster; it is in a different performance class entirely.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two tests where both cards appear in the same benchmark are Geekbench’s OpenCL and Vulkan compute suites, and the RX 6600 XT wins both by a staggering margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card scores 80,503 against the GTX 1630’s 24,858, a delta of 223.9%—meaning the RX 6600 XT is roughly 3.2 times faster in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan result is nearly as lopsided: 72,417 versus 23,695, a 205.6% advantage. These are not incremental wins; they are outright demolitions that reflect the underlying hardware disparity in shading units, memory bandwidth, and architecture.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture for the RX 6600 XT alone, the strengths are consistent across API generations. It posts 16,461 in Passmark G3D, 7,520 in Passmark GPU Compute, and 88720 in Geekbench Metal. The GTX 1630 has no comparable scores in those tests, so the only fair apples-to-apples comparison remains the two Geekbench runs. In both, the RX 6600 XT’s lead exceeds 200%, which dwarfs the 0.7% average-score delta between the two cards. That average is misleading because the GTX 1630’s two scores (24,858 and 23,695) are both compute-focused and far lower than the RX 6600 XT’s compute results, yet the GTX 1630’s average is pulled up by the absence of the RX 6600 XT’s weaker DirectX 9/10/11/12 Passmark scores (194, 109, 163, and 61 respectively). In real-world compute, the RX 6600 XT is over three times as fast.

The RX 6600 XT also shows strong relative positioning against its nearest rivals beyond the GTX 1630. It sits 1.1% above the RTX 2080 SUPER’s average score of 24,170, and 0.8% above the GTX 780 Ti’s 24,236, while trailing the Intel Arc A350M by 0.8%. Those are tight margins, but in the head-to-head with the GTX 1630, the delta is not close—it is a blowout. The GTX 1630, for its part, sits 0.2% above the GTX 780 Ti and 0.4% above the RTX 2080 SUPER in average score, but those figures come from a much smaller sample set and do not reflect the actual compute gap exposed in the Geekbench runs.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is the superior card for anyone who needs compute performance, and the GTX 1630 is only relevant in scenarios where its smaller footprint and lower power draw matter more than raw speed. The RX 6600 XT wins 2-0 in direct head-to-head benchmarks, with wins of 223.9% and 205.6% in OpenCL and Vulkan respectively. Those are not close calls; they are orders of magnitude apart.

For a user prioritizing compute-heavy tasks—OpenCL workloads, Vulkan-based applications, or any GPU-accelerated compute—the RX 6600 XT is the only rational choice. Its 10.60 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the GTX 1630’s 1.828 TFLOPS is a 5.8x gap in raw floating-point capability. Even accounting for architectural efficiency differences, that is an insurmountable lead. The RX 6600 XT also carries 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, versus the GTX 1630’s 4 GB on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s—more than double the memory capacity and nearly triple the bandwidth.

The GTX 1630’s only advantages are physical and power-related. It is a single-slot card measuring 145 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 18 mm in width, with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors. The RX 6600 XT is dual-slot, 190 mm long, 110 mm tall, and 40 mm wide, with a 160 W TDP and a single 8-pin connector. The GTX 1630 can run on a 250 W PSU; the RX 6600 XT suggests 450 W. For a low-profile or legacy system with minimal power delivery, the GTX 1630 is the practical pick, but that is a niche use case.

For gamers or compute users with a standard ATX power supply and PCIe 4.0 slot, the RX 6600 XT is the clear winner. The GTX 1630 does not appear in any gaming benchmark in this data set, but its compute scores are so far behind that no reasonable interpretation flips the verdict. The RX 6600 XT also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 1630 maxes out at DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4—a feature-level gap that matters for modern APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT has an average benchmark score of 24,442, which is 0.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630’s 24,277.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards in a shared test?

A: The largest delta is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 6600 XT scores 80,503 versus the GTX 1630’s 24,858, a 223.9% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Does the GTX 1630 win any benchmark against the RX 6600 XT?

A: No. In the two head-to-head tests recorded (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the RX 6600 XT wins both. The GTX 1630 has zero wins.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The RX 6600 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus, while the GTX 1630 has 4 GB of GDDR6 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 6600 XT has a 160 W TDP, requires a 450 W PSU, and needs a single 8-pin power connector. The GTX 1630 has a 75 W TDP, suggests a 250 W PSU, and requires no external power connectors.

Q: Which card is physically smaller?

A: The GTX 1630 is substantially smaller: 145 mm long, 69 mm high, and 18 mm wide (single-slot). The RX 6600 XT measures 190 mm by 110 mm by 40 mm and is dual-slot.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RX 6600 XT uses a 7 nm process from TSMC with 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 46.7M per mm². The GTX 1630 uses a 12 nm process from TSMC with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, for a density of 23.5M per mm². Clock speeds diverge sharply: the RX 6600 XT runs at 1968 MHz base and 2589 MHz boost, with a game clock of 2359 MHz; the GTX 1630 runs at 1740 MHz base and 1785 MHz boost, with no game clock specified. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for the AMD card versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA card.

The compute configuration is heavily lopsided. The RX 6600 XT has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the GTX 1630 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RX 6600 XT also includes 32 ray tracing cores; the GTX 1630 has none. Pixel rate is 165.7 GPixel/s for the AMD card versus 28.56 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card, and texture rate is 331.4 GTexel/s versus 57.12 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 10.60 TFLOPS versus 1.828 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 21.21 TFLOPS versus 3.656 TFLOPS. The RX 6600 XT uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface; the GTX 1630 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs differ: the RX 6600 XT has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 1630 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is fundamental. The RX 6600 XT is built on AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture, part of the Navi II (RX 6000) generation, using the Navi 23 chip. The GTX 1630 is built on NVIDIA’s Turing architecture, part of the GeForce 16 generation, using the TU117 chip. The RX 6600 XT’s RDNA 2.0 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes features like ray tracing and variable rate shading; the GTX 1630’s Turing implementation only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1), and it lacks dedicated ray tracing cores entirely (the RX 6600 XT has 32). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is not a differentiator there.

The transistor count and process node tell the story of efficiency. The RX 6600 XT packs 11,060 million transistors into 237 mm² at 7 nm, while the GTX 1630 fits 4,700 million into 200 mm² at 12 nm. That is a 2.35x transistor advantage for the AMD card on a smaller node, which explains the massive compute lead. The RX 6600 XT also has a 128-bit memory bus versus 64-bit, and 8 GB versus 4 GB of GDDR6, which further widens the bandwidth gap to 256.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. The RX 6600 XT’s ray tracing cores are a feature the GTX 1630 cannot match, and the RDNA 2.0 architecture is designed for modern rendering workloads, whereas the GTX 1630’s Turing is a cut-down implementation without RT or tensor cores. The GTX 1630 does have a smaller physical footprint and lower power draw, but architecturally it is a generation behind and a tier below.