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

The AMD Radeon RX 6600M and the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by process technology and architectural philosophy. The data shows a decisive performance gap, but the comparison reveals more than just a score difference; it highlights how far mobile GPU design has progressed in a few short years. The RX 6600M, built on RDNA 2.0, is a modern powerhouse, while the RX Vega M GL, based on GCN 4.0, is a legacy part with a unique memory setup.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is starkly one-sided, with the AMD Radeon RX 6600M winning both recorded benchmark comparisons by a massive margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 6600M scores 67,765, while the RX Vega M GL manages only 19,549. This translates to a deltaPct of 246.6%, meaning the RX 6600M is nearly three and a half times faster in this compute-oriented workload. The gap is so wide that it suggests not just a generational leap, but a fundamental difference in processing capability that the architecture alone can explain.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, though with a slightly smaller, yet still enormous, gap. The RX 6600M achieves a score of 73,740, compared to the RX Vega M GL's 22,757, resulting in a deltaPct of 224%. This indicates that the RX 6600M's advantage extends beyond raw compute into graphics API performance, where its newer architecture and higher clock speeds provide a significant edge. For context, the RX 6600M's overall average benchmark score is 23,273, placing it in the 68th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX Vega M GL's average is 21,153, good for the 66th percentile.

These percentile rankings are curious, however. Despite the RX 6600M being over 200% faster in the head-to-head tests, its average score is only about 10% higher than the RX Vega M GL's. This is because the average benchmark score includes a wider range of tests, many of which may not be as heavily weighted toward the architectural strengths that the head-to-head tests emphasize. The RX 6600M's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon R9 M290X, have an average score of 23,276, which is nearly identical, highlighting that its overall standing is closer to older high-end parts than the head-to-head scores would suggest.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6600M wins in every category where direct comparison data exists. Its victory in Geekbench OpenCL points to superior general-purpose compute performance, making it better suited for tasks like video encoding, data processing, and other GPU-accelerated applications. The Vulkan win reinforces this, showing that it can handle modern game engines and graphics APIs with far greater efficiency and speed. The data indicates that the RX 6600M is the clear choice for any workload that leverages these APIs.

The RX Vega M GL, with its 2 wins to 0, has no benchmark victories to claim. However, its existence is not without merit. Its lower TDP of 65 W, compared to the RX 6600M's 100 W, suggests it was designed for a different power envelope, potentially for thinner and lighter laptops where battery life and thermals are more critical than raw performance. While it loses on speed, its design may have been a better fit for a specific class of portable devices. The data does not show it winning any performance test, but its architecture and memory configuration might offer advantages in specific, niche scenarios not captured by the available benchmarks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is profound. The RX 6600M utilizes the Navi 23 chip on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. This advanced node allows for a transistor density of 46.7 million per mm², packing 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die. In contrast, the RX Vega M GL uses the Polaris 22 chip on the older GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This results in a much lower transistor density of 24.0 million per mm², with 5,000 million transistors on a 208 mm² die. The newer process node is a primary driver of the RX 6600M's performance and efficiency advantages.

The core configurations differ drastically. The RX 6600M features 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 render output units (ROPs). It also includes 28 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the RX Vega M GL, which has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. This difference in core counts directly translates to the performance gap. The RX 6600M's pixel rate is 154.6 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 270.6 GTexel/s, while the RX Vega M GL manages just 32.35 GPixel/s and 80.88 GTexel/s, respectively. The FP32 compute performance is equally lopsided, with the RX 6600M delivering 8.659 TFLOPS versus the RX Vega M GL's 2.588 TFLOPS.

Memory is another area of stark contrast. The RX 6600M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. The RX Vega M GL, however, uses 4 GB of HBM2 memory on a massive 1024-bit bus, but with a lower effective clock speed, achieving a bandwidth of 179.2 GB/s. While the RX Vega M GL's bus width is significantly wider, the RX 6600M's higher memory clock and larger capacity give it a clear advantage. The RX 6600M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX Vega M GL is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, meaning the newer GPU has access to more advanced rendering features.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon RX 6600M is the overwhelmingly superior product for performance-focused users. It wins every head-to-head test by a massive margin, offers more than triple the compute performance, and has double the memory capacity. The benchmark results indicate it is a far more capable GPU for gaming, content creation, and any GPU-accelerated task. Its higher TDP of 100 W is the price for this performance, but it is a reasonable trade-off for the capabilities on offer.

The AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL, on the other hand, is a product of its time. Its lower TDP of 65 W and unique HBM2 memory configuration suggest it was engineered for a niche market of portable devices where power efficiency was paramount. While it cannot compete with the RX 6600M in any measured metric, it may have been the right choice for a specific, power-constrained laptop design. Its performance, however, is firmly in the past, and the data shows it is significantly outclassed by even mid-range modern parts. Users seeking maximum performance should choose the RX 6600M without hesitation.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 6600M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 6600M scores 67,765 compared to the RX Vega M GL's 19,549, a deltaPct of 246.6%.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two GPUs?

A: The RX 6600M has a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s, while the RX Vega M GL has a bandwidth of 179.2 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600M includes 28 ray tracing cores, while the AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL has no ray tracing cores listed.

Q: What is the process node for each GPU?

A: The RX 6600M is manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the RX Vega M GL uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The RX 6600M has an average benchmark score of 23,273, and the RX Vega M GL has an average score of 21,153.

Q: Which GPU has a higher TDP?

A: The RX 6600M has a TDP of 100 W, while the RX Vega M GL has a lower TDP of 65 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6600M | AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 11,060 million | 5,000 million |

| Die Size | 237 mm² | 208 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 46.7M / mm² | 24.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2068 MHz | 931 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2416 MHz | 1011 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | HBM2 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 1024 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 700 MHz (1400 Mbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 1280 |

| TMUs | 112 | 80 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 28 | null |

| Pixel Rate | 154.6 GPixel/s | 32.35 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 270.6 GTexel/s | 80.88 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 8.659 TFLOPS | 2.588 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 17.32 TFLOPS (2:1) | 2.588 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | 65 W |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | IGP |

| Release Date | 2021-05-30 | 2018-01-31 |