AMD Radeon RX 6600S vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the AMD Radeon RX 6600S across all eight comparative benchmark tests, with no wins recorded for the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile. The margins vary considerably by workload, ranging from a narrow 1.8% edge to a decisive 32.8% advantage.

The largest separation appears in the older DirectX 10 path. The RX 6600S scores 81 against 61 for the RTX 3050 A Mobile, a 32.8% lead. This is a substantial gap and suggests the AMD part holds a significant advantage in legacy API workloads, a pattern that continues into DirectX 9 where the RX 6600S posts 176 versus 152, a 15.8% margin.

In the more modern DirectX 11 and DirectX 12 tests, the AMD part still leads, but the gap narrows considerably. DirectX 11 shows the RX 6600S at 105 against 94, an 11.7% advantage. DirectX 12, however, is the tightest race on the board: 56 versus 55, a mere 1.8% delta. This near-parity in the latest API generation indicates that the NVIDIA architecture closes much of the gap when both drivers are fully optimized for contemporary rendering paths.

Compute workloads tell a similar story to the graphics tests, though with a moderate margin. The Geekbench OpenCL score for the RX 6600S is 66435, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile manages 52998, a 25.4% advantage for AMD. The Passmark GPU Compute test shows a smaller but still clear lead: 4879 versus 4419, a 10.4% delta. The RX 6600S also wins the synthetic 3D aggregate, posting 12649 in Passmark G3D compared to 11664 for the NVIDIA part, an 8.4% edge. Even in the 2D-specific Passmark G2D test, which is often less dependent on raw shader throughput, the AMD part leads 647 to 526, a 23% margin.

Looking at the database-wide percentile rankings puts these results in context. The RX 6600S sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile lands at the 44th. The average benchmark score for the RX 6600S is 10629, compared to 8746 for the NVIDIA part. When placed against their nearest rivals, the RX 6600S is effectively tied with the Radeon R9 M275X (0.4% delta) and the GeForce GTX 560 Ti (-0.6% delta), while the RTX 3050 A Mobile sits at parity with the GeForce GTX 460 v2 (0% delta) and just ahead of the Quadro P2200 (0.7% delta). The overall picture is consistent: the RX 6600S outperforms the RTX 3050 A Mobile in every recorded test, with the largest wins coming in legacy DirectX and compute workloads, and the smallest in DirectX 12.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins more benchmark tests head-to-head?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600S wins all eight recorded head-to-head tests. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile records zero wins in the comparison.

Q: How large is the performance gap in DirectX 12?

A: The RX 6600S leads by only 1.8% in the Passmark DirectX 12 test, scoring 56 versus 55. This is the narrowest margin between the two in any benchmark category.

Q: Where does the RX 6600S show its biggest advantage?

A: The largest lead for the RX 6600S is in the Passmark DirectX 10 test, where it scores 81 versus 61, a 32.8% advantage. It also shows a strong 25.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL (66435 versus 52998).

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in overall benchmark standing?

A: The RX 6600S has an average benchmark score of 10629 and sits at the 49th percentile of all GPUs. The RTX 3050 A Mobile has an average score of 8746 and sits at the 44th percentile.

Q: Are the nearest rivals for each GPU similar in performance?

A: The RX 6600S is closely matched with the Radeon R9 M275X (0.4% delta) and the GeForce GTX 560 Ti (-0.6% delta). The RTX 3050 A Mobile is at parity with the GeForce GTX 460 v2 (0% delta) and slightly ahead of the Quadro P2200 (0.7% delta).

Q: Is there any test where the RTX 3050 A Mobile comes close to winning?

A: The closest result is in Passmark DirectX 12, where the RTX 3050 A Mobile trails by just 1.8% (55 versus 56). No recorded test shows the NVIDIA part ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon RX 6600S uses the Navi 23 chip based on RDNA 2.0, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile uses the GA106 chip based on Ampere, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The AMD part is smaller in both transistor count and die size: 11,060 million transistors on a 237 mm² die, versus 12,000 million transistors on a 276 mm² die for NVIDIA. This yields a higher transistor density for the AMD chip at 46.7M per mm², compared to 43.5M per mm² for the NVIDIA chip.

The shading resources tell a more nuanced story. Both parts have 1792 shading units, but the AMD GPU packs 112 texture mapping units and 64 raster output units, while the NVIDIA GPU has just 56 TMUs and 32 ROPs. The RX 6600S also carries 28 ray tracing cores, double the 14 found in the RTX 3050 A Mobile. However, the NVIDIA part includes 56 tensor cores, which the AMD GPU lacks entirely. This is a meaningful architectural distinction: the tensor cores are designed specifically for AI-accelerated workloads, while AMD relies on its general-purpose shading units for such tasks.

Clock behavior differs sharply between the two. The RX 6600S operates at a base clock of 1700 MHz and boosts to 2000 MHz, with a game clock of 1881 MHz. The RTX 3050 A Mobile runs at a much lower 1065 MHz base and 1343 MHz boost. This clock advantage, combined with the higher TMU and ROP counts, explains much of the AMD part's performance lead in the recorded benchmarks. The AMD GPU achieves a pixel rate of 128.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 224.0 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA part manages only 42.98 GPixel/s and 75.21 GTexel/s.

Compute throughput follows the same pattern. The RX 6600S delivers 7.168 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 14.34 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The RTX 3050 A Mobile delivers 4.813 TFLOPS of FP32 and the same 4.813 TFLOPS of FP16 with a 1:1 ratio. The NVIDIA part's FP16 performance is notably lower and does not benefit from the doubling architecture of the AMD GPU.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so there is no API feature gap at the software level. The memory subsystems also differ. The RX 6600S uses GDDR6 memory at 14 Gbps effective, yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth across a 128-bit bus. The RTX 3050 A Mobile uses GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective, yielding 192.0 GB/s across the same 128-bit bus. Both have 4 GB of memory.

Power characteristics differ substantially. The RX 6600S is rated at 80 W TDP, while the RTX 3050 A Mobile is rated at just 45 W. This 35 W difference is significant for mobile implementations, as the NVIDIA part draws considerably less power while delivering less performance. Both are integrated into the motherboard as IGP form factors with no external power connectors, and both use a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface. Display outputs are portable device dependent for both.

The generation and release timing also differ. The RX 6600S belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation and was released in January 2022, succeeding Polaris Mobile. The RTX 3050 A Mobile belongs to the GeForce 30 Mobile generation and was released at the end of December 2023, succeeding GeForce 20 Mobile. Both are now marked as end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Process node: 7 nm (AMD, TSMC) versus 8 nm (NVIDIA, Samsung)
• Transistors: 11,060 million versus 12,000 million
• Die size: 237 mm² versus 276 mm²
• Transistor density: 46.7M per mm² versus 43.5M per mm²
• Base clock: 1700 MHz versus 1065 MHz
• Boost clock: 2000 MHz versus 1343 MHz
• Game clock: 1881 MHz (AMD only, NVIDIA has none)
• Memory clock: 14 Gbps effective versus 12 Gbps effective
• Memory bandwidth: 224.0 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s
• TMUs: 112 versus 56
• ROPs: 64 versus 32
• Ray tracing cores: 28 versus 14
• Tensor cores: None versus 56
• Pixel rate: 128.0 GPixel/s versus 42.98 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 224.0 GTexel/s versus 75.21 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 7.168 TFLOPS versus 4.813 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 14.34 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 4.813 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 80 W versus 45 W
• Release date: January 2022 versus December 2023
• Predecessor: Polaris Mobile versus GeForce 20 Mobile

Identical specifications include 1792 shading units, 4 GB GDDR6 memory, 128-bit memory bus, PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and the same API support for DirectX 12 Ultimate, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6600S outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile in every recorded test. The AMD part holds a 25.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, a 32.8% lead in DirectX 10, and a 23% lead in G2D. Even in the closest test, DirectX 12, the RX 6600S maintains a 1.8% edge. The average benchmark score of 10629 for the RX 6600S versus 8746 for the RTX 3050 A Mobile, along with the 49th versus 44th percentile standings, reinforces the same conclusion.

For users prioritizing raw performance in the recorded workloads, the RX 6600S is the clear choice. Its higher clock speeds, doubled TMU and ROP counts, greater ray tracing core count, and substantially higher pixel and texture rates all contribute to its consistent lead. The 80 W TDP is higher than the 45 W of the NVIDIA part, so systems based on the RX 6600S will need to accommodate that additional power draw.

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile does have one distinct architectural asset: 56 tensor cores. These are absent from the RX 6600S and may be relevant for AI-oriented tasks, though the recorded benchmark data does not include a test that isolates this capability. The NVIDIA part also consumes significantly less power, which could be a deciding factor in thin-and-light laptops where thermal and battery constraints are paramount.

There is no scenario in the recorded data where the RTX 3050 A Mobile wins. Users who need maximum performance across the tested APIs and compute workloads should select the RX 6600S. Users who require the lowest power draw or rely on tensor-core-accelerated applications may find the RTX 3050 A Mobile more suitable, but they should expect a measurable performance deficit in every benchmark category recorded here.