AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two direct head-to-head comparisons between the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M. In both cases, the AMD part wins decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6600 XT scores 80503 against the M4000M's 19989. That is a 302.7% advantage. The gap is not a small margin; it is a multi-generation leap in raw compute throughput. For context, the RX 6600 XT's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 24442, while the M4000M's average is 20480, so the head-to-head OpenCL result is far more lopsided than the overall averages would suggest.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6600 XT records 72417 versus the M4000M's 20971, a 245.3% lead. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the RX 6600 XT supports Vulkan 1.4, as does the M4000M. Yet the architectural age difference shows: the M4000M was built for a driver and hardware design from a different era, and the RX 6600 XT simply has far more execution resources.

The win tally is 2 for AMD, 0 for NVIDIA. No recorded test favors the Quadro M4000M. The percentile rankings reinforce the story: the RX 6600 XT sits at the 70th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the M4000M sits at the 65th. The RX 6600 XT's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 1630 (average score 24277, delta 0.7%), the Intel Arc A350M (24647, delta -0.8%), the GeForce GTX 780 Ti (24236, delta 0.8%), and the GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER (24170, delta 1.1%). The M4000M's nearest rivals are the GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile (20534, delta -0.3%), the Intel Arc B570 (20556, delta -0.4%), the Intel Arc A750 (20582, delta -0.5%), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X (20662, delta -0.9%). Note that the M4000M's closest rivals are all within about 1% of its average score, meaning it sits in a tightly packed performance cluster, whereas the RX 6600 XT's rivals are also close but at a higher absolute level.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design generations. The RX 6600 XT uses the Navi 23 chip on TSMC's 7 nm process, while the M4000M uses the GM204 chip on TSMC's 28 nm process. That process difference is enormous in terms of transistor density: the RX 6600 XT packs 11,060 million transistors into a 237 mm² die, yielding 46.7M transistors per mm². The M4000M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, for 13.1M per mm². The RX 6600 XT achieves more than three times the density per square millimeter.

Architecturally, the RX 6600 XT is RDNA 2.0, part of the Navi II generation (RX 6000 series). The M4000M is Maxwell 2.0, part of the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. The RX 6600 XT includes 32 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the M4000M, which lists no RT cores. The RX 6600 XT also has 2048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The M4000M has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. So the ROP count is identical, but the RX 6600 XT has 60% more shading units and 60% more TMUs.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The RX 6600 XT has a base clock of 1968 MHz, a game clock of 2359 MHz, and a boost clock of 2589 MHz. The M4000M has a base clock of 975 MHz and a boost clock of 1013 MHz. The RX 6600 XT's base clock is roughly double the M4000M's boost clock. Even without considering architecture efficiency, the raw clock advantage is massive.

Memory configurations also diverge sharply. The RX 6600 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, with memory running at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding 160.4 GB/s. The RX 6600 XT has half the bus width but nearly 60% more bandwidth, thanks to faster memory technology. The RX 6600 XT also doubles the VRAM capacity.

The bus interface differs: the RX 6600 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the M4000M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Power profiles are also different. The RX 6600 XT has a TDP of 160 W, uses a dual-slot cooler, and requires a single 8-pin power connector with a suggested 450 W PSU. The M4000M is an MXM module with a 100 W TDP and no power connectors, since it draws power through the module interface.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT has an average benchmark score of 24442, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M has 20480. The RX 6600 XT is roughly 19% higher.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M win any recorded head-to-head test?

A: No. In the two direct comparisons (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the RX 6600 XT wins both. The win count is 2 for AMD, 0 for NVIDIA.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 6600 XT scores 80503 versus 19989 for the M4000M, a 302.7% advantage. That is a more than fourfold difference in raw score.

Q: Does the RX 6600 XT support ray tracing hardware?

A: Yes. The RX 6600 XT includes 32 ray tracing cores. The M4000M has no RT cores listed, so it lacks dedicated ray tracing hardware.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types?

A: The RX 6600 XT has 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the transistor densities compare?

A: The RX 6600 XT has a density of 46.7M transistors per mm² on a 7 nm process, while the M4000M has 13.1M per mm² on a 28 nm process. The RX 6600 XT is more than 3.5 times denser.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The process node is 7 nm for the RX 6600 XT versus 28 nm for the M4000M. Transistor count is 11,060 million versus 5,200 million. Die size is 237 mm² versus 398 mm². Transistor density is 46.7M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm².

Clock speeds: base 1968 MHz versus 975 MHz, boost 2589 MHz versus 1013 MHz. The RX 6600 XT also lists a game clock of 2359 MHz; the M4000M has no game clock. Memory clock is 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory: 8 GB GDDR6 versus 4 GB GDDR5. Bus width: 128 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth: 256.0 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s.

Compute resources: 2048 shading units versus 1280, 128 TMUs versus 80, 64 ROPs on both, 32 RT cores versus none. Pixel rate is 165.7 GPixel/s versus 64.83 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 331.4 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 10.60 TFLOPS versus 2.593 TFLOPS. The RX 6600 XT also lists FP16 at 21.21 TFLOPS (2:1); the M4000M has no FP16 figure.

Power and physical: TDP is 160 W versus 100 W. The RX 6600 XT is dual-slot with a 1x 8-pin connector and a suggested 450 W PSU. The M4000M is an MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus portable device dependent.

API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus DirectX 12 (12_1). OpenGL 4.6 on both. Vulkan 1.4 on both.

Release dates: the RX 6600 XT launched on 2021-07-29, the M4000M on 2015-08-17. Production status is end-of-life for both. The RX 6600 XT has a launch MSRP of 379 USD.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT is the superior GPU in every recorded metric. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score, higher percentile ranking, more memory, faster memory, more shading units, more TMUs, higher clocks, higher pixel and texture rates, higher FP32 throughput, and a denser, more advanced process node.

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is an older mobile workstation part. It was designed for a different purpose and era. Its only structural advantages are a wider memory bus (256 bit versus 128 bit), a lower TDP (100 W versus 160 W), and PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Those do not translate into performance wins in the recorded tests.

For anyone choosing between these two based on the database, the RX 6600 XT is the clear pick. The M4000M does not win a single test, and its best recorded score (20971 in Vulkan) is less than a third of the RX 6600 XT's Vulkan score (72417).

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6600 XT wins in every use case that the benchmark data covers. In OpenCL compute workloads, it leads by 302.7%. In Vulkan workloads, it leads by 245.3%. Its higher FP32 throughput (10.60 TFLOPS versus 2.593 TFLOPS) and higher texture rate (331.4 GTexel/s versus 81.04 GTexel/s) suggest it will remain ahead in most GPU-bound tasks.

The M4000M does have one niche where its specifications look favorable: power consumption. At 100 W versus 160 W, it draws less power and fits in an MXM module format. That makes it suitable for portable or compact systems where the RX 6600 XT's dual-slot, 8-pin design would not fit. But that is a physical compatibility advantage, not a performance one.

For gaming and general compute, the RX 6600 XT is the only rational choice from the data. For a legacy mobile workstation replacement where the MXM form factor is mandatory and power draw is the primary constraint, the M4000M remains an option, but the performance penalty is severe. The RX 6600 XT also offers 8 GB of VRAM versus 4 GB, which matters for modern workloads that exceed 4 GB capacity.

The M4000M's closest rivals in the database (RTX 3070 Mobile, Arc B570, Arc A750, R9 M390X) all sit within 1% of its average score, meaning it is competitive with those parts. But the RX 6600 XT sits in a different performance tier entirely, with an average score about 19% higher and head-to-head leads of 245% to 303%. There is no workload category in the recorded data where the M4000M closes the gap.