Can today's value king, the Radeon RX 6600, hold a candle to 2016's flagship GeForce GPU, the GTX 1080? Let's find out how these two GPUs match up by testing them in 51 games and get our answer.
Can today's value king, the Radeon RX 6600, hold a candle to 2016's flagship GeForce GPU, the GTX 1080? Let's find out how these two GPUs match up by testing them in 51 games and get our answer.
reported TDPs of the cards are about 170w for the 1080, and about 140w for the 6600. Granted that doesn't translate to real-world draws in a numerical sense, but considering one is designed for a far lower power envelope gives a fairly decent indication that not only is is significantly much faster, but does it with less power as well.What would be the difference in power consumption
The RTX 2060 is currently on sale for $229 (single fan model but still)The RX 6600 is a strong 1080p and even decent 1440p card. If I was building a budget build I would probably go with the RX 6600 XT, but both are good choice. Unfortunately, Nvidia doesn't have a great budget option.
1080p will certainly be around in two more RTX card series. The most popular card on the market remains the 1060, which was released six years ago.To me it really goes to show that we really don't need to "upgrade" so often. For at least myself, a locked horizontal refresh rate of 60hz has always proven perfect. No tearing. So anything over 60fps to me isn't a big deal.
For instance, my 2080 Super. There really shouldn't be a need to upgrade this until the RTX 5 series comes out and titles no longer utilize 1080p. My main monitor is an odd because it's also for work/spreadsheets/word, etc. I'm not thrilled with it, but I wanted big text for my old *** eyes. It's a Sceptre 38 inch cured 2560x1440. Not thrilled with the clarity, but it's good enough. I gave my daughter my Dell 34" curved gaming monitor. Man that thing was sharp as a tack, but not tall enough. I don't like the long monitors with no height. Not very work friendly.
My advice, scour E-bay for old flat-screen medical monitors. The medical field was able to force manufacturers to keep cranking out 4:3 aspect ratio in color for a while longer than we saw them in the consoomer market which gives you more of that vertical real estate. 2048 x 1536 is the highest resolution I've commonly seen at that ratio. IBM and a couple others did make higher resolutions but I've never seen them for sale anywhere. As an added bonus the color fidelity tends to also be top-tier. Granted, they won't work well for twitchy shooters and the like but I didn't play that junk to begin with. In terms of brands I can't say enough good things about Eizo - I bought a used Eizo, had some issues, and called their US tech support and they were happy to help me out. Even told me that the monitor in question was still under warranty and, despite being bought second-hand, could still be replaced until the warranty ran out. Thankfully that wasn't necessary but I was amazed at that.To me it really goes to show that we really don't need to "upgrade" so often. For at least myself, a locked horizontal refresh rate of 60hz has always proven perfect. No tearing. So anything over 60fps to me isn't a big deal.
For instance, my 2080 Super. There really shouldn't be a need to upgrade this until the RTX 5 series comes out and titles no longer utilize 1080p. My main monitor is an odd because it's also for work/spreadsheets/word, etc. I'm not thrilled with it, but I wanted big text for my old *** eyes. It's a Sceptre 38 inch cured 2560x1440. Not thrilled with the clarity, but it's good enough. I gave my daughter my Dell 34" curved gaming monitor. Man that thing was sharp as a tack, but not tall enough. I don't like the long monitors with no height. Not very work friendly.
Man am I glad I switched to AMD - functionality not locked out at the software level and the driver support goes for longer? Cracking!I'd be really interested to see how Vega aged compared to the 1080 here. Remember people bought Vega because of the "fine wine" aspect where AMD cards typically kept receiving important driver performance upgrades over long periods of time?
To me it looks like the 1080 *should* be the faster card here; it's just artificially limited by Nvidia dropping support.
THANK YOU! A couple of months ago I was making this decision, except it was 1080 vs 6600XT. The only comparison info was websites that just make a table comparing the chip/mem specs with some dubious benchmarks. They were neck & neck by that measure.
Looking at this article, it's obvious the 6600XT is the faster card by quite a margin.
I know. The cheesy "comparison" sites had the 1080 and 6600XT even. If the 6600 is faster than the 1080, then the 6600XT is also, and to a greater degree.The card benchmarked here is actually the RX 6600 (non XT) it's the weakest of the video encoder enabled RDNA2 cards.
Agreed. My Vega56 does everything I require of it at 1440p.I'd be really interested to see how Vega aged compared to the 1080 here. Remember people bought Vega because of the "fine wine" aspect where AMD cards typically kept receiving important driver performance upgrades over long periods of time?
To me it looks like the 1080 *should* be the faster card here; it's just artificially limited by Nvidia dropping support.
My main monitor is an odd because it's also for work/spreadsheets/word, etc. I'm not thrilled with it, but I wanted big text for my old *** eyes. It's a Sceptre 38 inch cured 2560x1440. Not thrilled with the clarity, but it's good enough. I gave my daughter my Dell 34" curved gaming monitor. Man that thing was sharp as a tack, but not tall enough. I don't like the long monitors with no height. Not very work friendly.
New Driver update has increased DX11 performance for RDNA2, so might be worth checking your driver's.What if the used 1080 and the RX6600 were the same price? What if a used RX6600 is cheaper than the 1080? Because I recently got a used RX6600 for $170. Like new, never mined. There is no way in heck in 2022 I would pay more for a 1080 than I just did for a much newer card. I used to own a GTX970, the cheapo option back when the 10-series of cards came out. It was a decent card. For six years ago.
My only issue at all with the RX6600 is the DirectX11 support. The game I play is DX11 and apparently Radeon cards are not very good with that. This is the first Radeon I have ever owned or even used, and I just didn't know that beforehand.
Vega 56 overtook the GTX 1070 after about 2 years of driver optimisations, so I'd expect the Vega 64 to be on par or better than the GTX 1080, which the 1660 Super is on par with.I'd be really interested to see how Vega aged compared to the 1080 here. Remember people bought Vega because of the "fine wine" aspect where AMD cards typically kept receiving important driver performance upgrades over long periods of time?
To me it looks like the 1080 *should* be the faster card here; it's just artificially limited by Nvidia dropping support.