AMD Radeon RX 6600S vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data provides exactly one common test result between these two GPUs, and it is a decisive victory for the AMD Radeon RX 6600S. In the Geekbench OpenCL workload, the RX 6600S scores 66,435, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 manages 11,431. That is a delta of -82.8% from the AMD card’s perspective, meaning the Quadro K2200 delivers only about 17% of the RX 6600S's compute throughput in this test. This is not a close contest; the RX 6600S is in a completely different performance tier for raw GPGPU workloads.

Despite this single head-to-head result, the aggregate benchmark picture is far closer. The Quadro K2200 has an average benchmark score of 10,761, while the RX 6600S sits at 10,629. That puts the NVIDIA card 1.2% ahead on average, a margin so thin it could be considered a tie. Both cards occupy the 49th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they sit squarely in the middle of the pack. The head-to-head OpenCL score is an outlier compared to the averages; it suggests the RX 6600S has a massive compute advantage that other benchmark types do not reflect.

The nearest rivals list confirms this odd juxtaposition. For the Quadro K2200, its closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro 450 at 10,804, which is just 0.4% slower. The RX 6600S is actually listed as the Quadro's fourth nearest rival, with a delta of 1.2% — meaning the Quadro is 1.2% faster than the RX 6600S on average, even though it loses the OpenCL test by 82.8%. For the RX 6600S, its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M275X, which is 0.4% slower, and the Quadro K2200 appears as its third nearest rival at -1.2%.

The practical interpretation is straightforward: if you need OpenCL compute performance, the RX 6600S is overwhelmingly superior. If you are looking at general 3D gaming or workstation performance across a variety of workloads, the two cards are effectively equivalent according to the aggregate data. The wins column shows 0 for the Quadro and 1 for the RX 6600S, but that single win is so lopsided that it skews the narrative.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 edges out the AMD Radeon RX 6600S with an average score of 10,761 versus 10,629. That is a 1.2% advantage for the Quadro, which is within the margin of error for most real-world workloads.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600S crushes the Quadro K2200 with a score of 66,435 versus 11,431. The Quadro trails by 82.8%, making this the single biggest performance gap in the data.

Q: What percentile do these GPUs occupy relative to all other graphics cards?

A: Both GPUs sit at the 49th percentile of all GPUs. This means they are neither entry-level nor high-end; they are solidly mid-range performers according to the benchmark database.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600S has 1,792 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has 640. This nearly 3x difference in shading units helps explain the RX 6600S's massive OpenCL advantage.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S are listed as end-of-life in the production status field. The Quadro was released in 2014, while the RX 6600S came later in 2022.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 6600S offers 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the Quadro K2200's 80.19 GB/s. That is a substantial 2.8x difference, driven by GDDR6 memory running at 14 Gbps effective versus GDDR5 at 5 Gbps effective.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon RX 6600S uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 23 chip on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is stark: 28 nm versus 7 nm, which translates into a massive transistor density advantage for AMD. The Quadro packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, giving it a density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 6600S crams 11,060 million transistors into 237 mm², achieving 46.7 million per square millimeter — nearly four times the density.

The memory subsystems are equally divergent. The Quadro uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the RX 6600S also has 4 GB but uses GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus. The effective memory clock is 5 Gbps on the Quadro versus 14 Gbps on the RX 6600S, which explains the bandwidth gap from 80.19 GB/s to 224.0 GB/s. The RX 6600S also features 28 ray tracing cores, a technology entirely absent from the Maxwell-generation Quadro. The shading unit count is 640 for the Quadro versus 1,792 for the RX 6600S, with texture mapping units at 40 versus 112 and raster operations units at 16 versus 64.

The API support reflects the architectural age difference. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the RX 6600S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both cards list OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, so those API levels are equivalent. The RX 6600S also has a 2:1 FP16 ratio, delivering 14.34 TFLOPS of half-precision compute versus 7.168 TFLOPS of FP32. The Quadro has no FP16 listing, and its FP32 is a modest 1,438.7 GFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets diverge on nearly every measurable field. The process node is 28 nm for the Quadro and 7 nm for the RX 6600S. Transistor count is 1,870 million versus 11,060 million, and die size is 148 mm² versus 237 mm². The Quadro's base clock is 1,046 MHz with a boost of 1,124 MHz; the RX 6600S runs at 1,700 MHz base, 1,881 MHz game clock, and 2,000 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1,253 MHz for the Quadro versus 1,750 MHz for the RX 6600S, with effective rates of 5 Gbps and 14 Gbps respectively.

The shading units are 640 versus 1,792, TMUs are 40 versus 112, and ROPs are 16 versus 64. The RX 6600S has 28 ray tracing cores, while the Quadro has none. Pixel rate is 17.98 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 128.0 GPixel/s for the RX 6600S. Texture rate is 44.96 GTexel/s versus 224.0 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 7.168 TFLOPS. The RX 6600S adds an FP16 rating of 14.34 TFLOPS (2:1), which the Quadro lacks entirely.

Power and physical characteristics differ substantially. The Quadro has a TDP of 68 W, while the RX 6600S is rated at 80 W. The Quadro is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RX 6600S is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors and no suggested PSU rating. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the Quadro versus PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RX 6600S. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro, while the RX 6600S is "portable device dependent." The Quadro has physical dimensions of 202 mm length and 111 mm height; the RX 6600S has no listed dimensions.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different use cases. If your priority is raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the AMD Radeon RX 6600S is the overwhelming choice. Its score of 66,435 versus 11,431 is an 82.8% difference that no other metric compensates for. The RX 6600S also has superior hardware specifications across the board: more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, ray tracing cores, higher clocks, and nearly 3x the memory bandwidth.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a different story. The Quadro K2200 edges the RX 6600S by 1.2% on average, and both sit at the 49th percentile. If you are looking at general 3D performance or traditional workstation tasks, the two GPUs are functionally equivalent according to the aggregate data. The Quadro also has the advantage of being a discrete, single-slot card with standard display outputs, while the RX 6600S is an IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs.

For a professional workstation environment where OpenCL compute matters, the RX 6600S is the clear winner. For a legacy system requiring a simple drop-in discrete GPU with DVI and DisplayPort outputs, the Quadro K2200 is the more practical choice. Neither card is future-proof, as both are end-of-life, but the RX 6600S is built on much newer technology.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon RX 6600S wins in:

• OpenCL compute performance: 66,435 versus 11,431, a 82.8% advantage.
• Memory bandwidth: 224.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s, nearly 3x the throughput.
• Shader throughput: 1,792 shading units versus 640, with 7.168 TFLOPS of FP32 versus 1,438.7 GFLOPS.
• Modern features: 28 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support versus the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0).
• Pixel and texture rates: 128.0 GPixel/s and 224.0 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s and 44.96 GTexel/s.
• Power efficiency per transistor: 46.7M transistors per mm² versus 12.6M, reflecting the 7 nm process advantage.

NVIDIA Quadro K2200 wins in:

• Average benchmark score: 10,761 versus 10,629, a 1.2% edge across all tests.
• Physical form factor: single-slot discrete card with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs versus an IGP with no standard display outputs.
• Lower TDP: 68 W versus 80 W, though both are power-efficient.
• No power connector requirement: the Quadro draws from the PCIe slot alone, while the RX 6600S is an IGP with no connector.
• PCIe compatibility: PCIe 2.0 x16 works in older motherboards, whereas PCIe 4.0 x8 may require a newer platform for full bandwidth.
• Smaller physical footprint: 202 mm length and 111 mm height versus no listed dimensions for the RX 6600S.

The choice comes down to workload. For compute-heavy tasks, the RX 6600S is in a different league. For legacy compatibility and general-purpose 3D acceleration, the Quadro holds its own and even leads slightly on aggregate scores.