AMD Radeon RX 6600M vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti Mobile Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti Mobile wins all 10 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Radeon RX 6600M. The AMD card records zero wins in the tested suite.

Q: How much faster is the RTX 3070 Ti Mobile in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test?

A: The NVIDIA GPU scores 2572 versus 1495 for the RX 6600M, a 72% advantage. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any benchmark.

Q: Are these two GPUs close in overall average benchmark score?

A: Yes. The RTX 3070 Ti Mobile has an average benchmark score of 23518, while the RX 6600M averages 23273. Despite the NVIDIA card winning every individual test, the aggregate scores are separated by roughly 1%.

Q: What is the percentile ranking difference between the two cards?

A: The RTX 3070 Ti Mobile sits in the 69th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6600M is in the 68th percentile. Both are effectively mid-pack performers in the overall GPU landscape.

Q: Which GPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600M has a boost clock of 2416 MHz, substantially higher than the RTX 3070 Ti Mobile's 1410 MHz boost. The AMD card also has a higher base clock at 2068 MHz versus 915 MHz.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Their API feature sets are identical.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti Mobile is built on the Ampere architecture using the GA104 chip, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The die measures 392 mm² and contains 17,400 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 44.4M per mm². AMD's Radeon RX 6600M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip, produced by TSMC on a 7 nm process. Its die is significantly smaller at 237 mm², with 11,060 million transistors and a higher density of 46.7M per mm².

The compute configurations differ dramatically. NVIDIA fields 5888 shading units, 184 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs. It also includes 46 ray tracing cores and 184 tensor cores. AMD counters with 1792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, plus 28 ray tracing cores. The RX 6600M has no tensor core equivalent. In raw FP32 throughput, the RTX 3070 Ti Mobile delivers 16.60 TFLOPS, nearly double the RX 6600M's 8.659 TFLOPS. However, in FP16, AMD's card produces 17.32 TFLOPS using a 2:1 rate, while NVIDIA achieves 16.60 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

Memory subsystems also diverge. Both cards feature 8 GB of GDDR6, but the NVIDIA GPU uses a 256-bit bus yielding 448.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD card operates on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s, exactly half the bandwidth. Clock speeds tell a different story: AMD runs much higher frequencies (2068 MHz base, 2416 MHz boost) versus NVIDIA's 915 MHz base and 1410 MHz boost. Despite the clock disadvantage, NVIDIA's wider architecture and memory bus produce higher pixel and texture rates in most metrics: NVIDIA achieves 135.4 GPixel/s and 259.4 GTexel/s, while AMD posts 154.6 GPixel/s and 270.6 GTexel/s, taking slight leads in those specific throughput measures.

Power consumption favors AMD at 100 W TDP versus NVIDIA's 115 W. The RX 6600M is designated as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor, while the RTX 3070 Ti Mobile lists no slot width. Both connect via PCIe 4.0, but NVIDIA uses x16 lanes while AMD uses x8. Both are marked as end-of-life products, with NVIDIA releasing in January 2022 and AMD in May 2021.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti Mobile is the faster GPU in every benchmark tested. It wins all 10 head-to-head comparisons, with deltas ranging from 6.5% to 72%. The most decisive victories come in modern workloads: 72% in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 56.5% in Geekbench OpenCL, and 35.6% in Geekbench Vulkan. The NVIDIA card also leads by 27.3% in Passmark G3D and 32.9% in Passmark GPU Compute.

The AMD Radeon RX 6600M is not without merit. It offers a lower 100 W TDP, a smaller die, and higher clock speeds. Its FP16 throughput of 17.32 TFLOPS actually exceeds NVIDIA's 16.60 TFLOPS. And in the aggregate, the two GPUs are remarkably close — the RX 6600M's average benchmark score of 23273 sits just 1% below the RTX 3070 Ti Mobile's 23518. This suggests that in a broad mix of workloads, the practical difference may be modest.

However, for users prioritizing raw performance in DX12, compute, and Vulkan applications, the RTX 3070 Ti Mobile is the clear choice based on the benchmark data. The RX 6600M competes best in legacy DirectX 9 and 2D tests, where the NVIDIA lead shrinks to single digits (6.5% and 7.6% respectively). Neither card offers a launch MSRP in the data, so pricing cannot be factored into the analysis.

Pick the RTX 3070 Ti Mobile if maximum frame rates and compute performance are the priority. Consider the RX 6600M if lower power draw, smaller silicon, and higher clock speeds matter more, and if the workload mix skews toward FP16 or older APIs where the gap narrows.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti Mobile | AMD Radeon RX 6600M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Ampere | RDNA 2.0 |

| Chip | GA104 | Navi 23 |

| Process Node | 8 nm (Samsung) | 7 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 17,400 million | 11,060 million |

| Die Size | 392 mm² | 237 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 44.4M / mm² | 46.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 915 MHz | 2068 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1410 MHz | 2416 MHz |

| Game Clock | — | 2177 MHz |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 5888 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 184 | 112 |

| ROPs | 96 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 46 | 28 |

| Tensor Cores | 184 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 135.4 GPixel/s | 154.6 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 259.4 GTexel/s | 270.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 16.60 TFLOPS | 8.659 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 16.60 TFLOPS (1:1) | 17.32 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 115 W | 100 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| Release Date | 2022-01-03 | 2021-05-30 |

| Slot Width | — | IGP |

The two cards share identical memory size (8 GB GDDR6), memory clock (1750 MHz / 14 Gbps effective), display outputs (portable device dependent), API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4), and power connector requirements (none).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti Mobile dominates the head-to-head results, winning all 10 tests. The largest margin comes in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where NVIDIA scores 2572 against AMD's 1495 — a 72% advantage. This test likely stresses modern rendering paths where NVIDIA's larger shader count and wider memory bus provide a substantial edge.

Geekbench results reinforce the pattern. In OpenCL, the RTX 3070 Ti Mobile scores 106022 versus 67765, a 56.5% lead. Vulkan shows a 35.6% gap, with NVIDIA at 100027 and AMD at 73740. These compute-oriented benchmarks highlight the NVIDIA card's superior FP32 throughput (16.60 TFLOPS versus 8.659 TFLOPS) and its tensor core acceleration capabilities.

Passmark's DirectX tests show consistent NVIDIA wins. In DX10, NVIDIA leads 124 to 87 (42.5%). DX12 shows a 40.4% gap (73 versus 52). DX11 narrows to 12.5% (153 versus 136). The closest DirectX result is DX9, where NVIDIA only leads 196 to 184, a 6.5% margin. This suggests that in legacy workloads, the AMD card's higher clock speeds help close the architectural gap.

The Passmark G3D score favors NVIDIA 17727 to 13929, a 27.3% difference. GPU compute shows a 32.9% lead for NVIDIA (7504 versus 5646). Even in G2D (2D graphics), NVIDIA edges ahead 783 to 728, a 7.6% margin.

The AMD Radeon RX 6600M's best showings are in the older API tests and 2D workloads, where the performance deficit shrinks to single digits. However, it never manages a win. The data indicates that while the RX 6600M can hang close in legacy scenarios, the RTX 3070 Ti Mobile pulls away decisively in modern DirectX 12, Vulkan, and compute-heavy applications. The NVIDIA card's 72% victory in Steel Nomad is the standout result, demonstrating a generational gap in raw rasterization performance that clock speed alone cannot overcome.