Radeon RX 6600M vs GeForce 320M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 320M and Radeon RX 6600M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 320M
2010
23 Watt
0.54

RX 6600M outperforms 320M by a whopping 6522% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1220136
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.6424.94
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameC89Navi 23
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 April 2010 (14 years ago)31 May 2021 (3 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores481792
Core clock speed450 MHz2068 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2416 MHz
Number of transistors486 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate7.200270.6
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPS8.659 TFLOPS
ROPs864
TMUs16112
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared8 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data224.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A2.1
VulkanN/A1.3

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 320M 0.54
RX 6600M 35.76
+6522%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 320M 209
RX 6600M 13796
+6501%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GeForce 320M 1852
RX 6600M 72686
+3825%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD20
−390%
98
+390%
1440p0−154
4K-0−131

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−3567%
110
+3567%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2600%
108
+2600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2300%
70−75
+2300%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2900%
90
+2900%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−8800%
85−90
+8800%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−1410%
150−160
+1410%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−2017%
120−130
+2017%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−310%
120−130
+310%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−4875%
199
+4875%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2300%
70−75
+2300%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2300%
72
+2300%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−8800%
85−90
+8800%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−1410%
150−160
+1410%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−2783%
173
+2783%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−640%
70−75
+640%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−310%
120−130
+310%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−1875%
79
+1875%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2300%
70−75
+2300%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1933%
61
+1933%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1400%
75−80
+1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−1240%
134
+1240%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−2450%
153
+2450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−750%
85
+750%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−96.7%
59
+96.7%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−5300%
50−55
+5300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 51
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−3500%
36
+3500%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−4000%
40−45
+4000%
Hitman 3 6−7
−650%
45−50
+650%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−3167%
98
+3167%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−18000%
180−190
+18000%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−1933%
60−65
+1933%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2800%
29
+2800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 27

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1450%
30−35
+1450%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 95
+0%
95
+0%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Metro Exodus 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 79
+0%
79
+0%
Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Metro Exodus 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 69
+0%
69
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 168
+0%
168
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 52
+0%
52
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Metro Exodus 85
+0%
85
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100
+0%
100
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 62
+0%
62
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Hitman 3 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+0%
44
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 74
+0%
74
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 52
+0%
52
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21
+0%
21
+0%

This is how GeForce 320M and RX 6600M compete in popular games:

  • RX 6600M is 390% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6600M is 18000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 6600M is ahead in 35 tests (50%)
  • there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.54 35.76
Recency 1 April 2010 31 May 2021
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 100 Watt

GeForce 320M has 334.8% lower power consumption.

RX 6600M, on the other hand, has a 6522.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6600M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 320M
GeForce 320M
AMD Radeon RX 6600M
Radeon RX 6600M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 52 votes

Rate GeForce 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 994 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6600M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.