AMD Radeon RX 6600M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1630 Comparison

The GeForce GTX 1630 and the Radeon RX 6600M are not combatants in the same weight class, yet the benchmark data places them in direct comparison. The GTX 1630 is a compact, low-power desktop card from the GeForce 16-series, while the RX 6600M is a mobile GPU from AMD's Radeon RX 6000 series. The head-to-head results are stark, with the AMD part dominating both available tests. This analysis breaks down the numerical facts to determine which GPU serves which purpose, strictly based on the provided benchmark scores and specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data available for direct comparison is limited to two Geekbench tests, yet the results are decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon RX 6600M scores 67,765, which crushes the GTX 1630's 24,858. This represents a delta of -63.3% for the GTX 1630, meaning the AMD GPU is roughly 2.7 times faster. This is not a marginal victory; it is a complete rout, indicating a fundamental difference in compute throughput.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, tells the same story with an even wider gap. The RX 6600M posts a score of 73,740, while the GTX 1630 manages only 23,695. The delta here is -67.9%, putting the AMD part at nearly three times the performance of the NVIDIA card. These two results alone account for the overall win tally of 2-0 in favor of the RX 6600M. The GTX 1630 fails to secure a single benchmark victory.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the average scores reinforce this hierarchy. The RX 6600M averages 23,273 across all its tested workloads, while the GTX 1630 averages 24,277. This seems contradictory to the head-to-head results until you consider the full scope of tests. The GTX 1630's average is buoyed by its two high Geekbench scores, whereas the RX 6600M's average is pulled down by several lower-scoring Passmark tests, such as its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 184. Nonetheless, in the two tests where they are directly compared, the RX 6600M is unequivocally superior.

The percentile rankings also place them in similar overall standing. The GTX 1630 sits at the 70th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6600M is at the 68th percentile. This suggests that while the RX 6600M has higher peak performance in certain APIs, the GTX 1630 holds its own in the broader spectrum of legacy and compute tasks. However, for modern gaming workloads, the RX 6600M's performance in Vulkan and OpenCL is the more relevant metric, and it wins those hands down.

The Verdict

The data leads to a clear conclusion: the Radeon RX 6600M is the superior graphics processor in raw performance. Its massive leads in both Geekbench OpenCL (63.3% ahead) and Vulkan (67.9% ahead) are not subtle. If the priority is maximum frame rates in modern titles that leverage Vulkan or OpenCL, the RX 6600M is the only logical choice between these two.

The GeForce GTX 1630, however, is not without its niche. Its average benchmark score of 24,277 is actually higher than the RX 6600M's average of 23,273, indicating that in a mix of older DirectX workloads and compute tests, it can be more consistent. The GTX 1630's nearest rivals include the RTX 2080 SUPER (0.4% faster) and RX 6600 XT (0.7% slower), placing its overall compute capability in a surprisingly high tier. This suggests that for users running a diverse workload of older applications, the GTX 1630 offers a more balanced, if slower, profile.

Who should pick which? Strictly from the data, a user needing a discrete, low-profile card with no power connectors for a basic system should consider the GTX 1630. Its 75 W TDP and single-slot design are practical advantages. But a user seeking gaming performance or heavy compute acceleration should unequivocally choose the RX 6600M, accepting its 100 W TDP and mobile (IGP) form factor. The benchmark data does not support any other conclusion.

Architecture Differences

These two GPUs represent entirely different architectural philosophies. The GTX 1630 is built on NVIDIA's Turing architecture, utilizing the TU117 chip manufactured on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The RX 6600M, conversely, uses AMD's RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip on a more advanced 7 nm process, also from TSMC. This allows AMD to fit 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, for a density of 46.7M per mm².

The core configurations differ dramatically. The GTX 1630 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). It has no dedicated ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RX 6600M is a much larger chip, featuring 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. It also includes 28 dedicated ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the GTX 1630.

These architectural differences manifest in raw throughput numbers. The RX 6600M's pixel rate is 154.6 GPixel/s, over five times higher than the GTX 1630's 28.56 GPixel/s. Similarly, its texture rate of 270.6 GTexel/s dwarfs the GTX 1630's 57.12 GTexel/s. In terms of floating-point performance, the RX 6600M delivers 8.659 TFLOPS FP32, compared to the GTX 1630's 1.828 TFLOPS. The AMD part is simply a far more powerful piece of silicon.

Memory architecture also diverges. The GTX 1630 uses a 64-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR6, achieving a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The RX 6600M uses a 128-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR6, for a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. This 2.33x bandwidth advantage is critical for high-resolution textures and modern game engines, further cementing the performance gap.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The GTX 1630 has a base clock of 1740 MHz and a boost clock of 1785 MHz, while the RX 6600M runs a base clock of 2068 MHz, a boost clock of 2416 MHz, and a defined game clock of 2177 MHz. The AMD card operates at significantly higher frequencies.

Memory specifications are a major differentiator. The GTX 1630 offers 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6600M doubles the capacity to 8 GB, doubles the bus width to 128-bit, and more than doubles the bandwidth to 224.0 GB/s. The memory clock is also higher on the AMD part: 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective).

Power and physical characteristics show the GTX 1630's desktop intent. It has a TDP of 75 W, is single-slot, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. Its dimensions are listed as 145 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 18 mm in width. The RX 6600M is a mobile part with a 100 W TDP, described as "IGP" for slot width, and has no listed dimensions since it is portable-device dependent.

Interface and output differences are notable. The GTX 1630 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and provides display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 6600M uses the newer PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, but its display outputs are labeled as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it relies on the laptop's integrated display or external ports. The RX 6600M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GTX 1630 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600M is significantly faster, scoring 73,740 compared to the GeForce GTX 1630's 23,695, a delta of -67.9% for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Does the GeForce GTX 1630 have ray tracing cores?

A: No, the GTX 1630 has no ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon RX 6600M, in contrast, includes 28 ray tracing cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Radeon RX 6600M has a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s, which is more than double the GeForce GTX 1630's 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The GeForce GTX 1630 has a higher average benchmark score of 24,277, compared to the Radeon RX 6600M's average of 23,273.

Q: Are these GPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The GTX 1630 uses a 12 nm process, while the RX 6600M uses a more advanced 7 nm process, both from TSMC.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The GeForce GTX 1630 has a TDP of 75 W, and the AMD Radeon RX 6600M has a TDP of 100 W.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon RX 6600M wins in every direct benchmark comparison available. Its victories in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan are decisive, with leads of 63.3% and 67.9% respectively. This makes it the clear winner for any workload that relies on these APIs, including modern gaming, especially with features like DirectX 12 Ultimate and ray tracing enabled. Its higher pixel rate (154.6 GPixel/s), texture rate (270.6 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (8.659 TFLOPS) give it an insurmountable advantage in raw graphics processing.

The GeForce GTX 1630's strengths lie outside the direct comparisons. Its higher average benchmark score (24,277 vs 23,273) suggests it performs more consistently across a wider range of tests, particularly in older DirectX and compute workloads. Its nearest rivals include the RTX 2080 SUPER and RX 6600 XT, indicating its compute performance is respectable. Furthermore, its practical design advantages—a 75 W TDP, single-slot form factor, no power connectors, and a suggested 250 W PSU—make it a far easier card to install in a compact or legacy system. It also has a defined set of physical display outputs, unlike the mobile RX 6600M, which is dependent on the host laptop.

In summary, the RX 6600M wins on pure performance and modern features. The GTX 1630 wins on installability and consistency in legacy workloads. The choice depends entirely on whether the user prioritizes raw speed or practical compatibility, and the benchmark data supports the RX 6600M for the former and the GTX 1630 for the latter.