AMD Radeon RX 6600S vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6600S and NVIDIA Quadro K5100M represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics, separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 6600S delivers a decisive 464.4% higher score than the K5100M. This staggering margin, alongside the broader specification differences, paints a clear picture of generational advancement. However, the comparison is not entirely one-sided, as the Quadro's larger memory pool and professional lineage offer distinct advantages in specific workstation scenarios, making the choice between them heavily dependent on the intended workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is not close. The AMD Radeon RX 6600S scores 66,435 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M manages 11,771 points. This results in a delta of 464.4% in favor of the AMD part, indicating that the RX 6600S is over five times faster in this compute-oriented test. This massive gap reflects the raw compute power of the newer RDNA 2.0 architecture, which delivers 7.168 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the K5100M's 2.369 TFLOPS.

The RX 6600S also shows its dominance in its average benchmark score across all tests, sitting at 10,629 compared to the K5100M's 10,043. While this overall difference is a modest 5.8%, it is skewed by the fact that the K5100M has only two benchmark entries in the pack, one of which (Geekbench Metal) is not comparable to any RX 6600S result. The Geekbench OpenCL result is the clearest indicator of relative compute strength, where the RX 6600S's lead is overwhelming.

Looking at individual synthetic tests for the RX 6600S, its Passmark scores reveal a balanced profile. It achieves a G3D score of 12,649, which is significantly higher than its G2D score of 647. This suggests that the card is heavily optimized for 3D rendering and gaming workloads rather than 2D desktop tasks. Its DirectX 9 score of 176 is notably higher than its DirectX 11 (105) and DirectX 12 (56) scores, which is an interesting inversion—likely indicating that the card's driver overhead or hardware scheduling is less efficient in newer API versions, or that legacy DX9 paths are particularly well-optimized.

In the context of its nearest rivals, the RX 6600S's average score of 10,629 places it just 0.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M275X and 1.4% ahead of the Radeon RX 550X. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti by 0.6% and the Quadro K2200 by 1.2%. This clustering suggests that while the RX 6600S is a strong performer, its overall average is competitive with, but not dramatically superior to, these older desktop-class parts. The K5100M, conversely, sits 0.3% behind the Radeon R9 M375, 0.3% ahead of the Radeon Pro 5300M, and 0.8% ahead of the GeForce GTX 870M, placing it in a similar performance tier relative to its own contemporaries.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental divide between these two GPUs lies in their underlying architectures, which are separated by a decade of innovation. The AMD Radeon RX 6600S is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. This modern node allows for a transistor density of 46.7 million per square millimeter, packing 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M uses the Kepler architecture on a dated 28 nm process, achieving a density of only 12.0 million transistors per square millimeter, with 3,540 million transistors on a larger 294 mm² die. The RX 6600S's smaller die with nearly three times the transistor count is a direct result of the process node advantage.

Clock speeds further amplify the architectural gap. The RX 6600S operates at a base clock of 1700 MHz, boosting to 2000 MHz, with a game clock of 1881 MHz. The K5100M is locked at a static 771 MHz for both base and boost. This 2.2x difference in clock speed, combined with the architectural IPC improvements of RDNA 2.0 over Kepler, explains the massive compute performance disparity. The RX 6600S also features 28 dedicated ray tracing cores, a capability entirely absent from the K5100M, which lacks any RT cores.

Memory architecture is another critical divergence. The RX 6600S uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s. The K5100M counters with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 256-bit bus, but its older memory technology results in a lower bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The RX 6600S's bandwidth is nearly double that of the K5100M, which is crucial for feeding its higher compute throughput. The K5100M's advantage lies in its larger capacity, which can be a deciding factor for holding large datasets in GPU memory.

The feature sets also reflect their respective generations. The RX 6600S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it fully compliant with modern gaming and compute standards. The K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, which lacks the full feature set of the newer API versions. The RX 6600S also uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the K5100M is confined to an older MXM-B (3.0) bus standard.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600S is overwhelmingly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 66,435 versus the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M's 11,771, a 464.4% advantage. This is supported by its FP32 performance of 7.168 TFLOPS versus 2.369 TFLOPS for the K5100M.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M have any performance advantage?

A: Based on the data, the K5100M has no benchmark wins against the RX 6600S. Its average benchmark score is lower (10,043 vs 10,629), and it only has results for Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Metal, neither of which shows a win against the AMD part.

Q: How do their memory specifications compare?

A: The RX 6600S has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6600S has nearly double the bandwidth, while the K5100M has double the capacity.

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The RX 6600S has a lower TDP of 80 W compared to the K5100M's 100 W, despite delivering significantly higher performance. This indicates superior power efficiency for the AMD part.

Q: What are the API feature level differences?

A: The RX 6600S supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD card supports a newer DirectX feature level and a more recent Vulkan version.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life products. The RX 6600S was released on 2022-01-03, while the K5100M is much older, released on 2013-07-22.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6600S | NVIDIA Quadro K5100M |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 11,060 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 237 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 46.7M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1700 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2000 MHz | 771 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 112 | 128 |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| RT Cores | 28 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 128.0 GPixel/s | 24.67 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 224.0 GTexel/s | 98.69 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 7.168 TFLOPS | 2.369 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 14.34 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 80 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2022-01-03 | 2013-07-22 |

| Successor | None | Quadro Maxwell-M |

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the AMD Radeon RX 6600S for any compute-intensive or modern gaming workload. Its 464.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with superior pixel rate (128.0 vs 24.67 GPixel/s), texture rate (224.0 vs 98.69 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute, makes it the clear choice for raw processing power. The RX 6600S also offers modern features like ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support, which the K5100M completely lacks. For users running contemporary applications or games that leverage these APIs, the RX 6600S is the only viable option.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is not without its merits. Its 8 GB of VRAM is double that of the RX 6600S, which could be a decisive factor for specific professional workloads that require loading larger models or datasets that exceed 4 GB. The K5100M's wider 256-bit bus also suggests a different memory access pattern that might be beneficial in certain niche scenarios, despite its lower overall bandwidth. The Quadro's professional lineage, evidenced by its MXM form factor and successorship, indicates it was designed for stability and certification in workstation environments, which could be a consideration for legacy software compatibility.

Benchmark results indicate that for the vast majority of users, the RX 6600S is the superior product. Its performance advantages are so large that they outweigh the K5100M's memory capacity benefit in almost every conceivable scenario. The only situation where the K5100M would be preferable is if a specific application strictly requires more than 4 GB of VRAM and does not benefit from the RX 6600S's compute capabilities. In that narrow case, the Quadro's larger memory pool is its only saving grace.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon RX 6600S: The RX 6600S wins in every benchmark category where both have data. Its 464.4% advantage in Geekbench OpenCL makes it the definitive choice for general-purpose GPU compute, including OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulations, and machine learning inference. Its higher pixel and texture rates indicate a clear win for gaming at high resolutions and detail settings. The presence of 28 RT cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate support means it wins in any workload that uses ray tracing or modern DirectX 12_2 features. Its lower TDP of 80 W also makes it a winner for power-constrained mobile devices, delivering more performance per watt than the 100 W K5100M.

NVIDIA Quadro K5100M: The K5100M's only clear advantage is its 8 GB memory capacity, which is double the RX 6600S's 4 GB. This makes it a potential winner in scenarios where memory capacity is the bottleneck, such as holding extremely large textures, scientific datasets, or complex CAD models that exceed 4 GB. Its wider 256-bit memory bus, while resulting in lower bandwidth, could theoretically provide lower latency in some access patterns. For users with legacy professional software that is certified for Kepler-based Quadro cards, the K5100M might be the safer choice for compatibility. However, this is a narrow niche, and the data shows it loses decisively in performance.