Radeon RX 6600 vs Quadro FX 2700M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 2700M with Radeon RX 6600, including specs and performance data.

FX 2700M
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 65 Watt
0.95

RX 6600 outperforms FX 2700M by a whopping 4039% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1120113
Place by popularitynot in top-10013
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0267.37
Power efficiency1.0020.41
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameG94Navi 23
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date14 August 2008 (16 years ago)13 October 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99.95 $329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 6600 has 336750% better value for money than FX 2700M.

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 speed530 MHz1626 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2491 MHz
Number of transistors505 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt132 Watt
Texture fill rate12.72279.0
Floating-point processing power0.1272 TFLOPS8.928 TFLOPS
ROPs1664
TMUs24112
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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-HEPCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data190 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed799 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.14 GB/s224.0 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 outputs1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12.0 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA1.1-

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.

FX 2700M 0.95
RX 6600 39.32
+4039%

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.

FX 2700M 366
RX 6600 15147
+4039%

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.

FX 2700M 2799
RX 6600 94734
+3285%

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 HD2−3
−5550%
113
+5550%
1440p1−2
−5600%
57
+5600%
4K0−131

Cost per frame, $

1080p49.982.91
1440p99.955.77
4Kno data10.61

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−3467%
107
+3467%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−1560%
80−85
+1560%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2533%
75−80
+2533%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2933%
91
+2933%
Far Cry 5 0−1 85−90
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−4750%
95−100
+4750%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1880%
99
+1880%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−1154%
160−170
+1154%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−9100%
90−95
+9100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−1943%
140−150
+1943%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−316%
120−130
+316%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−1560%
80−85
+1560%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2533%
75−80
+2533%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2333%
73
+2333%
Far Cry 5 0−1 85−90
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−4750%
95−100
+4750%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1800%
95
+1800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−1154%
160−170
+1154%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−9100%
90−95
+9100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−2500%
182
+2500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−710%
80−85
+710%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−316%
120−130
+316%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−1560%
80−85
+1560%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2533%
75−80
+2533%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1867%
59
+1867%
Far Cry 5 0−1 85−90
Hitman 3 5−6
−1620%
86
+1620%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−992%
142
+992%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−2143%
157
+2143%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−800%
90
+800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−87.1%
58
+87.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−9100%
90−95
+9100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−7400%
75−80
+7400%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−4100%
40−45
+4100%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−3300%
34
+3300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−4400%
45−50
+4400%
Hitman 3 7−8
−671%
54
+671%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−2450%
102
+2450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 55−60
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
−4700%
190−200
+4700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−2133%
65−70
+2133%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 30−35

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 24
Far Cry 5 0−1 21−24

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 113
+0%
113
+0%
Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Metro Exodus 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 92
+0%
92
+0%
Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Metro Exodus 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 78
+0%
78
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 52
+0%
52
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Metro Exodus 97
+0%
97
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 101
+0%
101
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Hitman 3 36
+0%
36
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+0%
44
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 53
+0%
53
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21
+0%
21
+0%

This is how FX 2700M and RX 6600 compete in popular games:

  • RX 6600 is 5550% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6600 is 5600% faster in 1440p

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

  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 6600 is 9100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 6600 is ahead in 40 tests (62%)
  • there's a draw in 25 tests (38%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.95 39.32
Recency 14 August 2008 13 October 2021
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 132 Watt

FX 2700M has 103.1% lower power consumption.

RX 6600, on the other hand, has a 4038.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 2700M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX 6600 is a desktop one.


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 Quadro FX 2700M
Quadro FX 2700M
AMD Radeon RX 6600
Radeon RX 6600

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.


3.1 9 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2700M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 9754 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6600 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.