The Radeon RX 6600 XT is AMD's latest mainstream GPU release, expected to land on retailers' shelves a day after this review goes live, that is, immediate availability on August 11.
The Radeon RX 6600 XT is AMD's latest mainstream GPU release, expected to land on retailers' shelves a day after this review goes live, that is, immediate availability on August 11.
This card's performance makes it essentially an RX 5700 XTX. Sure, it's got ray-tracing capability but that's still just a frill. At this point, I'm still not convinced that ray-tracing will become the standard because it's just not enough of an improvement over rasteristion to justify the extra hardware and coding requirements to implement it.
Between the RX 5700 XT and this, the former may use more power, but it is more consistent with performance just by virtue of it having a traditional and wider memory bus. The cache generally helps, but it is so cut down I don’t even know if it’s even meaningful. At 1440p, the 5700 XT is a better option.This card's performance makes it essentially an RX 5700 XTX. Sure, it's got ray-tracing capability but that's still just a frill. At this point, I'm still not convinced that ray-tracing will become the standard because it's just not enough of an improvement over rasteristion to justify the extra hardware and coding requirements to implement it.
Not really, Techpowerup have both in their review and 6600XT is like 5% better for 1440p overall. However both cards are too slow for 1440p if you ask me.Between the RX 5700 XT and this, the former may use more power, but it is more consistent with performance just by virtue of it having a traditional and wider memory bus. The cache generally helps, but it is so cut down I don’t even know if it’s even meaningful. At 1440p, the 5700 XT is a better option.
Yes horrible, especially considering the actual prices in store but even MSRP is too high.I am still laughing at the price/performance ratio. What a crap!
This card's performance makes it essentially an RX 5700 XTX. Sure, it's got ray-tracing capability but that's still just a frill. At this point, I'm still not convinced that ray-tracing will become the standard because it's just not enough of an improvement over rasteristion to justify the extra hardware and coding requirements to implement it.
The thing is, that extra eye candy doesn't really add anything to the gameplay. I've never been really affected by the lack of reflections in game because I don't even notice reflections in real life. If puddles stopped reflecting the sky in real life, I probably wouldn't notice for months at least and years at most.To me, RT is supposed to provide a new level of eye candy, but no real functionality or enhancement to gameplay.
I could be wrong and perhaps I think that a game like Subnautica could get some real benefits of RT since underwater illumination on this game seems to be all over the place.
But the other reality is, the hardware to properly support RT is not out here yet, hence the "tricks" like DLSS and FSR are needed.
I just dont know if we ever get that hardware that properly support RT was really worth the silicon.
To me, AMD nailed it with their high end RDNA2 GPUs, ie. 6900 and 6800 series.
The thing is, that extra eye candy doesn't really add anything to the gameplay.
I think that's the problem. Ray-tracing improves things that we wouldn't even notice in our day-to-day lives, let alone in a video game.
So on top of an already high price for 128-bit, the card has been artificially crippled to run slower on most of the world motherboards? Hard pass..."This means when using both the RTX 3060 and 6600 XT in a PCIe 3.0 system while playing Doom under these conditions, the GeForce GPU will be almost 30% faster. Just as shocking is that we found a way to make the 6600 XT slightly slower than the 5600 XT as the older 5000-series part supports x16 bandwidth."