AMD Radeon RX 6700 vs NVIDIA T600 Mobile Comparison

The NVIDIA T600 Mobile and AMD Radeon RX 6700 occupy very different corners of the GPU landscape, despite both being end-of-life products. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the more interesting story lies in what each card is built to do. The T600 Mobile is a 40 W IGP (integrated graphics processor) designed for portability and low power draw, while the RX 6700 is a 175 W dual-slot behemoth with a discrete power connector. Their benchmark scores reflect this divide, but the specifics of where each wins reveal distinct design philosophies.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 is the outright performance winner in every benchmark where both cards have been tested. In the two shared tests — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — the RX 6700 wins both, giving it a perfect 2-0 record in head-to-head comparisons. The NVIDIA T600 Mobile, conversely, wins zero direct comparisons. This is not a close contest; the RX 6700 leads by a massive margin in both tests, suggesting a fundamental difference in compute capability rather than a minor architectural advantage.

However, the T600 Mobile is not without its own niche. Its 40 W TDP and IGP slot width mean it can be deployed in systems where the RX 6700 physically cannot fit or operate. The T600 Mobile has no power connectors and a portable-device-dependent display output, making it suitable for compact, low-power workstations. The RX 6700, with its 450 W suggested PSU and 267 mm length, demands a full desktop chassis with substantial power delivery. In terms of raw performance per watt, the T600 Mobile’s 2.527 TFLOPS FP32 output at 40 W is a far more efficient ratio than the RX 6700’s 11.29 TFLOPS at 175 W, though the latter’s absolute performance is overwhelming.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA T600 Mobile has a higher average benchmark score of 32849, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 6700’s 30433. This is surprising given the RX 6700’s dominant head-to-head wins, but the averages are drawn from different benchmark suites.

Q: How does the RX 6700 compare to its nearest rival in the data?

A: The RX 6700’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA CMP 70HX, with a deltaPct of -0.1, meaning the RX 6700 trails it by a negligible 0.1%. It also sits just 1.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 and 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti.

Q: What is the architectural node difference between the two?

A: The NVIDIA T600 Mobile uses a 12 nm process node from TSMC, while the AMD Radeon RX 6700 uses a 7 nm process node, also from TSMC. This gives the RX 6700 a significant transistor density advantage at 51.3M / mm² versus 23.5M / mm².

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The T600 Mobile supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 6700 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). This indicates the RX 6700 has more advanced feature support, including hardware ray tracing.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6700 has 320.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is substantially higher than the NVIDIA T600 Mobile’s 192.0 GB/s. This is due to both a wider 160-bit bus and faster 16 Gbps effective memory speed.

Q: What is the release timeline for these products?

A: The NVIDIA T600 Mobile was released on 2021-04-11, while the AMD Radeon RX 6700 followed nearly two months later on 2021-06-08. Both are now marked as end-of-life, with the T600 Mobile’s predecessor being Quadro Pascal-M and the RX 6700’s being Navi.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the starkest contrast. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 scores 97841, while the NVIDIA T600 Mobile scores 35486. This represents a deltaPct of -63.7 for the T600 Mobile, meaning it trails by over 63%. In raw terms, the RX 6700 is roughly 2.76 times faster in this compute-heavy workload. This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational gap in compute throughput.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly different magnitude. The RX 6700 scores 83974 versus the T600 Mobile’s 30211, a deltaPct of -64. Here, the RX 6700’s advantage is even more pronounced in relative terms, as the Vulkan API likely leverages the RDNA 2.0 architecture’s strengths more effectively. The RX 6700 also has a significant edge in raw specifications that explain these results: 2304 shading units versus 896, 144 TMUs versus 56, and 64 ROPs versus 32. Its pixel rate of 156.8 GPixel/s and texture rate of 352.8 GTexel/s dwarf the T600 Mobile’s 45.12 GPixel/s and 78.96 GTexel/s.

Interestingly, the benchmark data also shows that the T600 Mobile’s percentile rank (77) is actually higher than the RX 6700’s (75), despite the latter’s head-to-head dominance. This suggests that the T600 Mobile’s average score of 32849 is closer to the top of its performance class, while the RX 6700’s 30433 average places it slightly lower in the overall distribution, likely due to the inclusion of more demanding tests in its suite.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is memory configuration. The RX 6700 offers 10 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit bus, delivering 320.0 GB/s, while the T600 Mobile has only 4 GB on a 128-bit bus, yielding 192.0 GB/s. This 2.5x memory capacity difference and 1.67x bandwidth advantage make the RX 6700 far better suited for large textures and high-resolution workloads.

Clock speeds also diverge significantly. The T600 Mobile runs at a 780 MHz base and 1410 MHz boost, while the RX 6700 starts at 1941 MHz base and boosts to 2450 MHz, with a game clock of 2174 MHz. The RX 6700’s boost clock is nearly 74% higher than the T600 Mobile’s, contributing to its massive FP32 throughput advantage of 11.29 TFLOPS versus 2.527 TFLOPS.

The physical and power specifications could not be more different. The T600 Mobile is an IGP with no power connectors and a 40 W TDP, while the RX 6700 is a dual-slot card requiring a 1x 8-pin connector and a 450 W suggested PSU. The RX 6700 measures 267 mm in length, 110 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, whereas the T600 Mobile has no listed dimensions, reinforcing its embedded nature. The bus interface also differs: the T600 Mobile uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 6700 uses the newer PCIe 4.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent entirely different architectural generations. The NVIDIA T600 Mobile is built on the Turing architecture, using the TU117 chip manufactured on a 12 nm process. It contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 23.5M / mm². The AMD Radeon RX 6700, in contrast, uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 22 chip on a 7 nm process. It packs 17,200 million transistors onto a 335 mm² die, achieving a density of 51.3M / mm² — over twice the density of the Turing chip.

This architectural gap manifests in feature support. The RX 6700 includes 36 ray tracing cores, which the T600 Mobile entirely lacks. The RX 6700 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the T600 Mobile is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the RX 6700’s newer architecture allows for more advanced rendering techniques. Interestingly, neither GPU has tensor cores, so AI-accelerated workloads are not a differentiator here.

The FP16 performance also highlights the architectural difference. The T600 Mobile delivers 5.053 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio), while the RX 6700 delivers 22.58 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). This four-fold advantage in half-precision compute suggests the RX 6700 is better prepared for emerging workloads that leverage FP16, even without dedicated tensor hardware.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6700 is the superior performer in every head-to-head benchmark. Its 63.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 64% lead in Geekbench Vulkan are decisive, backed by superior specifications across the board — 2.57x more shading units, 2.57x more TMUs, 2x more ROPs, and 4.47x higher FP32 throughput. Anyone needing maximum compute performance should choose the RX 6700 without hesitation.

However, the NVIDIA T600 Mobile is not without merit for specific use cases. Its 40 W TDP and IGP form factor make it ideal for ultra-portable or low-power systems where the RX 6700’s 175 W draw and dual-slot footprint are simply impractical. The T600 Mobile’s higher percentile rank (77 versus 75) also suggests that within its own performance class, it sits closer to the top of the heap. For a mobile workstation requiring basic 3D acceleration without the need for a discrete power supply, the T600 Mobile is the only viable option of the two.

The choice ultimately comes down to the system’s physical constraints. If a desktop chassis with a 450 W PSU and room for a 267 mm card is available, the RX 6700’s performance advantage is overwhelming. If the requirement is an embedded or compact solution with minimal power draw, the T600 Mobile’s efficiency — 2.527 TFLOPS at 40 W — makes it a sensible, if less capable, alternative. The data does not support the T600 Mobile on raw performance, but it does support it on operational flexibility.