AMD Radeon RX 6800M vs NVIDIA T600 Mobile Comparison

NVIDIA T600 Mobile and AMD Radeon RX 6800M represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics. The T600 is a low-power Turing-based professional solution, while the RX 6800M is a high-end RDNA 2 gaming part. The database shows a massive performance gap, but the story is more nuanced when considering power, features, and target use cases. This analysis draws exclusively on recorded benchmark data and specification comparisons.

FAQ

Q: How large is the performance difference in the recorded head-to-head benchmarks?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6800M scores 87,621 versus the T600’s 35,486, a delta of -59.5% from the AMD part’s perspective. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6800M scores 94,766 versus 30,211, a delta of -68.1%. The RX 6800M wins both recorded tests.

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The T600 Mobile has a higher average benchmark score of 32,849, compared to the RX 6800M’s 28,874. This is despite the RX 6800M winning both head-to-head tests, indicating the T600’s score is bolstered by its specific benchmark set.

Q: What are the process node differences between the two chips?

A: The T600 Mobile uses a 12 nm process at TSMC, while the RX 6800M uses a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. The RX 6800M’s die is 335 mm² with 17,200 million transistors, whereas the T600’s die is 200 mm² with 4,700 million transistors.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The T600 Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus with 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6800M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth, exactly double the T600’s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The RX 6800M has a pixel rate of 153.0 GPixel/s, while the T600 Mobile has 45.12 GPixel/s. The RX 6800M also has a texture rate of 382.4 GTexel/s versus 78.96 GTexel/s for the T600.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The T600 Mobile is rated at 40 W TDP, while the RX 6800M is rated at 145 W TDP. This makes the T600 substantially more power-efficient per watt, though the RX 6800M delivers far more absolute performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The T600 Mobile is built on NVIDIA’s Turing architecture, using the TU117 chip. It is a 12 nm part fabricated by TSMC, with a die size of 200 mm² and 4,700 million transistors. The RX 6800M uses AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture on the Navi 22 chip, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. Its die is 335 mm² and packs 17,200 million transistors, giving it a transistor density of 51.3M per mm² versus 23.5M per mm² for the T600.

The compute configurations diverge sharply. The T600 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6800M has 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RX 6800M also includes 40 ray tracing cores, while the T600 has none. The T600 has no tensor cores either, whereas the RX 6800M’s RDNA 2 architecture supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), compared to the T600’s DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The T600 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, while the RX 6800M uses 12 GB on a 192-bit bus. The RX 6800M’s memory clock is 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective, versus 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective on the T600. This yields a bandwidth of 384.0 GB/s for the AMD part, exactly double the T600’s 192.0 GB/s.

The bus interface differs as well: the T600 runs on PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 6800M uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The T600’s base clock is 780 MHz with a boost of 1410 MHz, while the RX 6800M’s base is 2116 MHz and boost is 2390 MHz, with a game clock of 2300 MHz. The RX 6800M’s FP32 compute is 12.24 TFLOPS, nearly five times the T600’s 2.527 TFLOPS. FP16 performance is 24.47 TFLOPS versus 5.053 TFLOPS.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear split in intended use. The RX 6800M is the dominant performer in raw compute and graphics workloads, winning both head-to-head benchmarks by wide margins. In OpenCL, it is 59.5% ahead of the T600, and in Vulkan it is 68.1% ahead. For any task that demands maximum throughput, ray tracing support, or large memory buffers, the RX 6800M is the obvious choice.

The T600 Mobile, however, has its own strengths. It operates at 40 W TDP versus 145 W for the RX 6800M, making it far more suitable for thin-and-light professional laptops where battery life and thermals matter more than absolute speed. Its average benchmark score of 32,849 is higher than the RX 6800M’s 28,874, which suggests that in the specific tests where the T600 is measured, it performs consistently relative to its class. The T600’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA P104-100 (delta -0.4%), AMD Radeon RX 590 GME (delta 0.8%), and AMD FirePro S9300 X2 (delta 0.9%), all within 1% of its average score. This indicates it sits in a tight performance band.

The RX 6800M’s nearest rivals are different: AMD Radeon RX 570 (delta 0.4%), AMD Radeon RX 470 (delta -0.4%), AMD Radeon R9 M295X (delta 1%), and Intel Arc A370M (delta -1%). Its average score is lower than the T600’s, but its head-to-head wins are decisive. The verdict depends on the workload: choose the RX 6800M for heavy graphics, compute, or ray-traced content; choose the T600 for power-constrained environments where its lower TDP and adequate performance are sufficient.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node is 12 nm for the T600 versus 7 nm for the RX 6800M. Transistor count is 4,700 million versus 17,200 million, and die size is 200 mm² versus 335 mm². Transistor density is 23.5M per mm² versus 51.3M per mm².

Clock speeds are substantially higher on the RX 6800M: base 2116 MHz versus 780 MHz, boost 2390 MHz versus 1410 MHz, and game clock 2300 MHz (not present on the T600). Memory clocks are 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective versus 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective.

Memory size is 4 GB versus 12 GB, bus width is 128-bit versus 192-bit, and bandwidth is 192.0 GB/s versus 384.0 GB/s. Shading units are 896 versus 2,560, TMUs are 56 versus 160, and ROPs are 32 versus 64. The RX 6800M has 40 ray tracing cores; the T600 has none.

Pixel rate is 45.12 GPixel/s versus 153.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 78.96 GTexel/s versus 382.4 GTexel/s. FP32 is 2.527 TFLOPS versus 12.24 TFLOPS. FP16 is 5.053 TFLOPS versus 24.47 TFLOPS. TDP is 40 W versus 145 W. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x16. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6800M scores 87,621 against the T600’s 35,486. The delta is -59.5%, meaning the T600 is roughly 59.5% slower than the RX 6800M in this test. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6800M scores 94,766 against 30,211, a delta of -68.1%. The RX 6800M wins both tests, giving it a 2-0 record in head-to-head matchups.

These are not marginal wins. The RX 6800M’s OpenCL score is more than double the T600’s, and its Vulkan score is more than triple. The gap is consistent with the specification differences: the RX 6800M has nearly five times the FP32 throughput, double the memory bandwidth, and triple the shading units. The T600’s lower clocks and smaller memory subsystem put it at a significant disadvantage in these compute-oriented benchmarks.

The average benchmark scores tell a different story. The T600’s average is 32,849, while the RX 6800M’s is 28,874. This is because the T600 is measured on two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), both of which are relatively close to its average. The RX 6800M has eleven recorded benchmarks, including several PassMark tests with low scores (e.g., DirectX 9 at 147, DirectX 10 at 101, DirectX 12 at 65), which drag down its average. The RX 6800M’s Geekbench Metal score of 113,721 is its highest recorded result, but it is not compared directly against the T600 in that test.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6800M wins in every directly comparable benchmark. It dominates in OpenCL and Vulkan, and its specification sheet shows advantages in pixel rate, texture rate, FP32, FP16, memory bandwidth, and ray tracing capability. For applications that leverage these features, such as modern game engines, 3D rendering, or GPU compute tasks, the RX 6800M is the stronger choice. Its 12 GB memory buffer also allows for larger datasets and textures than the T600’s 4 GB.

The T600 Mobile wins in power efficiency and portability. At 40 W TDP, it consumes less than a third of the RX 6800M’s 145 W. This makes it suitable for ultra-thin laptops where thermal and battery constraints are tight. Its average benchmark score of 32,849 is higher than the RX 6800M’s 28,874, indicating that in its limited test set, it performs consistently without the low-end outliers seen in the RX 6800M’s PassMark results. The T600’s nearest rivals are all within 1% of its score, suggesting it is well-positioned within its performance class.

For professional mobile workstations that need basic GPU acceleration without high power draw, the T600 is the logical pick. For gaming, high-performance compute, or ray-traced workloads, the RX 6800M is the only viable option based on the data. The choice is not about which is better overall, but which fits the power envelope and workload requirements of the user.