AMD Radeon RX 6600S vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 and AMD Radeon RX 6600S occupy vastly different positions in the mobile GPU landscape, despite both being end-of-life products. The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head comparison, but it is a decisive one: in Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6600S scores 66,435 against the MX350’s 8,689, a delta of -86.9% for the NVIDIA part. That gap is not incremental; it is generational. The MX350’s average benchmark score of 10,883 places it in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6600S’s average of 10,629 also lands in the 49th percentile—yet these averages mask the enormous variance in individual workloads. The OpenCL result alone suggests the AMD part is roughly 7.6 times faster in that compute-oriented test, but the story is more nuanced when looking at the full benchmark profile of each card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is not close. The AMD Radeon RX 6600S produces 66,435 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 manages just 8,689. That represents an 86.9% deficit for the MX350, meaning the RX 6600S delivers over seven times the raw compute throughput in this test. For context, the MX350’s nearest rivals in average score include the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804, 0.7% ahead) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761, 1.1% ahead), while the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075) sits 1.7% higher than the MX350. The RX 6600S, by contrast, has nearest rivals like the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10,582, 0.4% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690, 0.6% behind), which are all far closer to its average score than to its OpenCL peak. This suggests the RX 6600S’s average is dragged down by other tests, but its compute ceiling is far above anything the MX350 can approach.

The MX350’s other benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a score of 13,077, which is higher than its OpenCL result but still far below the RX 6600S’s OpenCL number. The RX 6600S also has a Passmark G3D score of 12,649, a Passmark G2D score of 647, and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 4,879. In DirectX tests, it scores 81 in DirectX 10, 105 in DirectX 11, 56 in DirectX 12, and 176 in DirectX 9. These numbers indicate a card that is strong in legacy APIs (DirectX 9) but weaker in modern ones (DirectX 12), which is curious given its RDNA 2.0 architecture. The MX350, lacking any Passmark results, cannot be directly compared there, but its OpenCL and Vulkan scores suggest it is a low-power entry-level part.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and process nodes. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses the GP107S chip built on a 14 nm Samsung process, with a die size of 132 mm² and 3,300 million transistors. Its transistor density is 25.0 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon RX 6600S uses the Navi 23 chip on TSMC’s 7 nm node, with a die size of 237 mm² and 11,060 million transistors, yielding a density of 46.7 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip is more than three times larger in transistor count and nearly double the die size, which explains its higher compute capability despite a more advanced process.

Architecturally, the MX350 is based on Pascal, which supports DirectX 12 (12_1) but lacks dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The RX 6600S is RDNA 2.0, which supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and includes 28 ray tracing cores. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines, while the RX 6600S has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This is a 2.8x difference in shading units and a 4x difference in ROPs, which directly impacts fill rate: the MX350’s pixel rate is 23.49 GPixel/s and texture rate is 46.98 GTexel/s, versus the RX 6600S’s 128.0 GPixel/s and 224.0 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 1.879 TFLOPS for the MX350 and 7.168 TFLOPS for the RX 6600S, a 3.8x gap. The MX350’s FP16 performance is a meager 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the RX 6600S achieves 14.34 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, showing a fundamental difference in how each architecture handles half-precision workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has an average benchmark score of 10,883, while the AMD Radeon RX 6600S averages 10,629. The MX350 is 254 points higher, but both sit in the 49th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The MX350 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6600S uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s—exactly four times the bandwidth.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The MX350 has a TDP of 20 W, while the RX 6600S has a TDP of 80 W. Neither requires external power connectors, and both have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Q: Which GPU supports ray tracing?

A: Only the AMD Radeon RX 6600S supports ray tracing, with 28 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has no ray tracing cores, consistent with its Pascal architecture.

Q: How do the clock speeds differ?

A: The MX350 has a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz. The RX 6600S has a base clock of 1700 MHz, a boost of 2000 MHz, and a game clock of 1881 MHz. The memory clock is similar at 1752 MHz for the MX350 and 1750 MHz for the RX 6600S, but the effective data rate is 7 Gbps versus 14 Gbps.

Q: What is the bus interface difference?

A: The MX350 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the RX 6600S uses PCIe 4.0 x8. This gives the AMD part twice the lane count and a newer standard, which can matter for data transfer from system memory.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce MX350 | AMD Radeon RX 6600S |

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

| Chip | GP107S | Navi 23 |

| Architecture | Pascal | RDNA 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,300 million | 11,060 million |

| Die Size | 132 mm² | 237 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.0M / mm² | 46.7M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1354 MHz | 1700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1468 MHz | 2000 MHz |

| Game Clock | N/A | 1881 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 56.06 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 32 | 112 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | N/A | 28 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.49 GPixel/s | 128.0 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 46.98 GTexel/s | 224.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1.879 TFLOPS | 7.168 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | 29.36 GFLOPS (1:64) | 14.34 TFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 20 W | 80 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Release Date | 2020-02-09 | 2022-01-03 |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 wins in efficiency. Its 20 W TDP is one-quarter that of the RX 6600S’s 80 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is minimal. It also has a higher average benchmark score than the RX 6600S, despite losing the OpenCL test decisively. For legacy DirectX workloads, the RX 6600S shows strength in DirectX 9 (176 in Passmark) but is notably weaker in DirectX 12 (56), whereas the MX350’s architecture supports DirectX 12_1 and may handle those workloads differently—though no Passmark data exists for it. The RX 6600S wins in every raw performance metric: shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32, and FP16. It also supports ray tracing, which the MX350 cannot. The RX 6600S’s 4 GB of GDDR6 memory is double the MX350’s 2 GB of GDDR5, and its 128-bit bus provides 224.0 GB/s versus 56.06 GB/s. For compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL, the RX 6600S is the clear victor, but the MX350’s lower power draw and smaller die size (132 mm² vs 237 mm²) make it a more practical choice for ultraportable designs.

The MX350 also has a higher average score than its rival, 10,883 versus 10,629, which means in mixed workloads it may edge ahead. Its nearest rivals include the GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047, 1.5% ahead) and RX 550 (11,075, 1.7% ahead), placing it in a performance class that is barely above entry-level. The RX 6600S’s nearest rivals—R9 M275X, GTX 560 Ti, Quadro K2200, RX 550X—are all older or lower-tier parts, suggesting its average is heavily influenced by its weaker DirectX performance. In the DirectX 12 test, the RX 6600S scores only 56, which is below its DirectX 11 score of 105 and DirectX 10 score of 81. This could indicate driver overhead or architectural inefficiencies in certain workloads, but the OpenCL result shows its true compute potential.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6600S is the superior performer in raw compute and modern features, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 is the efficiency champion. For users who prioritize battery life and low thermal output—typical of thin notebooks—the MX350’s 20 W TDP makes it a sensible choice, especially given its higher average benchmark score of 10,883. However, that average is misleading because the only head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the RX 6600S at 66,435 versus the MX350’s 8,689, an 86.9% gap. The RX 6600S also offers 28 ray tracing cores, 7.168 TFLOPS of FP32, and 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth, making it a capable gaming and compute GPU in a mobile form factor. Its 80 W TDP is high for a laptop but not extreme, and its 4 GB GDDR6 memory is double the MX350’s 2 GB GDDR5.

Users who need ray tracing, higher resolution textures, or compute acceleration should choose the RX 6600S without hesitation. Users who need a low-power GPU for basic tasks—office work, media playback, light gaming—will find the MX350 adequate, and its higher average score suggests it handles a broader range of benchmarks consistently. The RX 6600S’s DirectX 12 score of 56 is a red flag for modern gaming, but its DirectX 9 score of 176 and OpenCL result indicate strength in older titles and compute. Ultimately, the MX350 is a legacy part from 2020, while the RX 6600S is a 2022 release with more modern architecture. The choice depends on whether efficiency or capability matters more—and the benchmark data makes that trade-off starkly clear.