AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT Review: Diminishing Returns

pildorman321

Posts: 130   +83
I am not against AMD as I am also a RX 6800 XT user. But if I reviewed this card, I would have given it a lower score than 60/100. As mentioned earlier, starting from the 6700 XT to this 6600XT, AMD cut too much on the specs. From a full fat Navi 21 to 22, it lost 50% of the CUs on top of the lost in memory bus and cache. While the lost of CU is less of a problem from Navi 22 to 23, the significant lost in cache, memory bus and even the PCI-E lane support is a show stopper for me. Even a cheap GTX 1650 supports x16 lanes, so I am not sure why they even decided to limit it to x8. So desperate to cut cost? This is supposed to be a lower end GPU which will benefit budget gamers which may probably still be using a system that is limited to PCI-E 3.0. So I feel its a bad decision.
AMD just forgot tu cut TDP in half.
 

pildorman321

Posts: 130   +83
This will only solve the issue for a fraction of budget gamers. Most people are still using Intel based system with PCI-E 3.0 support, which are going to lose some performance. It is not a big performance loss, but to know that I can't run the card at full speed just annoys me. And it is not exactly a cheap card.
AMD cant add "magic lanes" to this sad 6600xt, nor fix intel problems BUT THEY CAN REVERT the BS bios crippling on b450 motherboards.
 

Neatfeatguy

Posts: 507   +865
It is still faster than the 3060 at 1440p on average, losing at 4k but then again neither of the two are useable at that resolution.

Not a dig at you - you just happened to be the umpteenth person to make a comment like this so I used your quote - but for all those folks that constantly say X card isn't good enough for high resolutions....maybe they're not good enough for your needs, but that doesn't mean others will agree with you.

I ran two GTX 570s in SLI for 4.5 years. The last two years I had them I was gaming on 5760x1080. The cards only had 1.25GB VRAM, so they were really limited by the VRAM available. Yet I had a good time using them to game across 3 - 1080p monitors in all sorts of games. I had to adjust settings down on a lot of games to medium range and I'd get anywhere from 30-60fps (depending on the game), but it didn't bother me. I enjoyed it.

The fact that people will constantly rag on any GPU about how it's "not good enough" for a high resolution, well, that's on you. What you like and what you expect isn't what the next person likes and expects.

Now, I would agree with a comment that a 3060 or 6600XT cards should not be purchased if someone strictly plans on playing at 4K or even if someone is expecting high fps on 1440p. Logically, that's a sound decision that these cards just aren't up to it. However, it doesn't mean that these cards cannot be used for those resolutions, the end user just needs to understand they'll have to sacrifice graphic settings to help obtain a decent, playable performance out of the cards. A playable performance varies between people - some people don't mind the 30-60fps while others think anything under 60 is garbage. To each their own, but folks need to stop saying these cards cannot perform at high resolutions just because it's not something they would do.
 

pildorman321

Posts: 130   +83
Such BS, inventing new laws? AMD "ah but this is a 1080p GPU!" the other GPUS like WTF is this SHT SON... GTFO !
 

veLa

Posts: 1,132   +780
Not a dig at you - you just happened to be the umpteenth person to make a comment like this so I used your quote - but for all those folks that constantly say X card isn't good enough for high resolutions....maybe they're not good enough for your needs, but that doesn't mean others will agree with you.

I ran two GTX 570s in SLI for 4.5 years. The last two years I had them I was gaming on 5760x1080. The cards only had 1.25GB VRAM, so they were really limited by the VRAM available. Yet I had a good time using them to game across 3 - 1080p monitors in all sorts of games. I had to adjust settings down on a lot of games to medium range and I'd get anywhere from 30-60fps (depending on the game), but it didn't bother me. I enjoyed it.

The fact that people will constantly rag on any GPU about how it's "not good enough" for a high resolution, well, that's on you. What you like and what you expect isn't what the next person likes and expects.

Now, I would agree with a comment that a 3060 or 6600XT cards should not be purchased if someone strictly plans on playing at 4K or even if someone is expecting high fps on 1440p. Logically, that's a sound decision that these cards just aren't up to it. However, it doesn't mean that these cards cannot be used for those resolutions, the end user just needs to understand they'll have to sacrifice graphic settings to help obtain a decent, playable performance out of the cards. A playable performance varies between people - some people don't mind the 30-60fps while others think anything under 60 is garbage. To each their own, but folks need to stop saying these cards cannot perform at high resolutions just because it's not something they would do.

Yeah, this is very much my sentiment as well. When I had a gaming laptop in college with a GTX 260M, I understood that for new games I'd either have to drop the resolution or drop the settings to medium. That wasn't a problem for me and I had a great time with it until I did another proper build a couple years down the line.

My other take on the RX 6600 XT is that you get near RX 5700 XT performance with raytracing as an added gimmick, and well, if you're building something small like an ITX system, then maybe this isn't a bad choice if you can actually find it at MSRP.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,756   +2,936
Yeah, this is very much my sentiment as well. When I had a gaming laptop in college with a GTX 260M, I understood that for new games I'd either have to drop the resolution or drop the settings to medium. That wasn't a problem for me and I had a great time with it until I did another proper build a couple years down the line.

My other take on the RX 6600 XT is that you get near RX 5700 XT performance with raytracing as an added gimmick, and well, if you're building something small like an ITX system, then maybe this isn't a bad choice if you can actually find it at MSRP.
Looking back, I played Counterstrike on a cheap Acer PC bought at Walmart with a K6-II 300 and integrated graphics. With the right settings it was actually OK.

So I agree with you both it is possible to play at higher resolutions if you tweak settings and are willing to live with compromises.

I personally have gotten to the point that if I select a card for a certain resolution, I just want to be able to play at high quality settings and stable fps > 60 without the need for tweaking, but that does not mean everyone else has to.

As for RX 6600 XT at msrp - if you wanted one you could get it at least at German and UK retailers for that price, in the US Microcenter still has them in store - just checked Fairfax VA and they are available there.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 883   +1,678
Cart before the horse. The situation kinda forced them to say that, doesn't it? With the way this card's performance implodes at 1440p and above.
Can't call it a freebie when competing cards - even less expensive ones - don't share this disadvantage.
Amazing how people can move the goal post even on themselves.

So my point is the card is marketed as 1080p, it does its job at 1080p and yet here you go again and move the goal post to 1440....

Some people just love to tr0ll.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 883   +1,678
As for RX 6600 XT at msrp
To be honest, I think that AMD should had said the MSRP is 50 bucks and not offer it on their site.

No matter what, nobody will be able to get it at that price, yet all these reviewers would either praise that or find something else to nail it to the cross.
 

Beerfloat

Posts: 311   +533
Amazing how people can move the goal post even on themselves.

So my point is the card is marketed as 1080p, it does its job at 1080p and yet here you go again and move the goal post to 1440....

Some people just love to tr0ll.
The card is not priced as 1080p. I don't subscribe to your notion that AMD should get credit for acknowledging it is a weak card.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 883   +1,678
The card is not priced as 1080p.
Another goal post move....

Tell me which cards are priced correctly these days?

they can price it anyway they want, I can guarantee that you wont be able to get it at that price.


Seriously, argue something more logical or stop wasting your time and others.
 

Beerfloat

Posts: 311   +533
Another goal post move....

Tell me which cards are priced correctly these days?

they can price it anyway they want, I can guarantee that you wont be able to get it at that price.


Seriously, argue something more logical or stop wasting your time and others.
You keep repeating that, and I am starting to realize you don't actually understand what moving goalposts means. Either way, I'm not interested in where you would like to set them. And I'll happily continue to call out your curious brand of hyperpartisan nonsense when I see it, thanks.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 883   +1,678
You keep repeating that, and I am starting to realize you don't actually understand what moving goalposts means. Either way, I'm not interested in where you would like to set them. And I'll happily continue to call out your curious brand of hyperpartisan nonsense when I see it, thanks.
You are insisting that the price is wrong and all that I am saying that doesnt matter this day and age.

That applies to every single GPU in the market right now.

So if you want to blame or crucify anyone, do it for all of them, not only one.

Anyways, this is a moot point to argue for the reasons stated.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,756   +2,936
The card is not priced as 1080p. I don't subscribe to your notion that AMD should get credit for acknowledging it is a weak card.
It‘s not, but I could have easily bought one today for €379 had I wanted to. No waiting lists, bots…

An RTX 3060 costs €569 and that‘s an even weaker 1080p card. Alternatively, I could get a 1660 (standard) for €389.

Of course you can go on and pretend msrp is a thing or has been for the entire year.
 

Alfatawi Mendel

Posts: 149   +233
Meanwhile in the real here and now. NOT fairy tale MRSP figures
RTX 3060Ti = £585
RTX 3060 (12GB) £590
RX 6600xt = £390
Prices current and available for sale at Ebuyer uk.
Given that the rx6600 is roughly 30% cheaper than the 'mighty' 3060ti and within 10% the performance at 1080p.
I would say it's a bit of a bargain. Steve might want to revise his review.
 

Beerfloat

Posts: 311   +533
It‘s not, but I could have easily bought one today for €379 had I wanted to. No waiting lists, bots…

An RTX 3060 costs €569 and that‘s an even weaker 1080p card. Alternatively, I could get a 1660 (standard) for €389.

Of course you can go on and pretend msrp is a thing or has been for the entire year.
That’s nice. Though we’ll have to see how long supplies will last.

We could also stop pretending RDNA2 is feature complete and equally desirable when compared with Ampere. Why buy any of the current AMD GPUs in general - and the 6600 XT in particular - if it doesn’t come at a sizeable discount?

In the meanwhile, Nvidia OEMs are actually getting lots of cards to market, but selling every single one of them. Without serious competition demand will keep prices inflated.
 

b3rdm4n

Posts: 48   +44
I dont have a gpu (well, my 6900xt is still in the box, waiting for other parts) that shows me the magical benefits of DLSS, but from other forums, many owners of RTX gpus have expressed that they dont use it because of shimmering and other issues and they dont use RT because (like I feel) its not worth the performance hit for the weak eye candy provided, so how come this particular review and specially Steve (who I think is an excellent reviewer) suddenly place so much effort on both techs as something that is suddenly a must have?
He has changed his tune, perhaps from community pressure, perhaps he really believes in the feature now that it is gaining steam and IQ is improving, but I'd imagine he's also partially basing his take from direct community feedback that he sought.

DLSS2.jpg


So of the respondents that have tried DLSS, which seems like around 35k votes, ~75% either can't tell or believe it improves visuals, 'only' 25% must see issues that detract.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 883   +1,678
He has changed his tune, perhaps from community pressure, perhaps he really believes in the feature now that it is gaining steam and IQ is improving, but I'd imagine he's also partially basing his take from direct community feedback that he sought.

DLSS2.jpg


So of the respondents that have tried DLSS, which seems like around 35k votes, ~75% either can't tell or believe it improves visuals, 'only' 25% must see issues that detract.
Thank you.

I hope that Steve and HU reconsider this.

We need some reviewers that know more than us to provide fair, balanced and real reviews.

Let Linus and the others misguide the sheeps.

Peer pressure always lead to bad decisions and in this case, false perspective.
 

Watzupken

Posts: 342   +320
He has changed his tune, perhaps from community pressure, perhaps he really believes in the feature now that it is gaining steam and IQ is improving, but I'd imagine he's also partially basing his take from direct community feedback that he sought.
I don't think he changed his tune. In my opinion, I have the same thoughts too, I.e. if AMD and Nvidia have a product that performs almost the same, I would have recommended going for Nvidia's solution assuming if price is close. In this case, the RX 6600 XT is more expensive than a RTX 3060 if we look purely at MSRP since market price fluctuates, and it is possible to get a RTX 3060 from the likes of EVGA at MSRP if you can wait. The reason for recommending Nvidia is because its got more features, I.e. CUDA cores for some professional work, faster RT (which may not be useful for some people, but it is still possible to run RT) and DLSS which can further improve performance. One can argue that AMD has FSR, but FSR also works with Nvidia cards. So Nvidia cards get both DLSS and FSR support which can be helpful over time when games get challenging for the card to manage. And don't forget that the humble RTX 3060 has 50% more VRAM and much higher memory bandwidth that allows it to stretch up to 1440p which the RX 6600 XT may struggle. That's my personal opinion. I have a RX 6800 XT and I chose it over a RTX 3080 because it is cheaper, more VRAM and generally runs faster at 1440p without RT which is not an important feature for me. In this case, the RX 6600 XT is the opposite.
 
Last edited:

b3rdm4n

Posts: 48   +44
I hope that Steve and HU reconsider this.
I don't really have an issue with their approach, given they are acting, at least in part, on their own communities feedback, the people they in theory at least make the content for. They still review the cards totally 'normally' but do mention / cover the value adds / extra features or nuances that either brand may also offer towards the end of the articles.

The much stranger part to me is his wording and how fast the tune seemed to change, it seemed like he went from what I'd call fairly strong apathy for DLSS, to calling it a desirable "killer feature", that could stand to be said and worded more neuturally I suppose.

And don't forget that the humble RTX 3060 has 50% more VRAM and much higher memory bandwidth that allows it to stretch up to 1440p which the RX 6600 XT may struggle. That's my personal opinion.
Yeah I tend to agree, general rast performance aside, these are extra features that could and should at least be considered case by case.

As for what I quoted, it's not only the 3060 with 12gb, the 3060Ti with the same 8GB appears in this review to perform better in what is presumed to be a memory bottlenecked situation because of the much higher bandwidth it offers.

Having said all of that, here in Australia it looks like LOTS of 6600XT's were available and all within spitting distance of MSRP too, so for local buyers this card represents some of the best value available right now based on actual availability and street price, so that's a win right there, it is a respectable chunk of performance you're getting if you really do get it at ~MSRP while competing cards and even AMD's own higher up cards are all massively blown out. If I had been waiting all this time on something like a GTX1060 or RX580, I'd be finger on the trigger for one IMO. I can't believe how lucky I really was to land a day 1 RTX 3080 before this whole mess began.
 
Last edited:

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 883   +1,678
I don't think he changed his tune. In my opinion, I have the same thoughts too, I.e. if AMD and Nvidia have a product that performs almost the same, I would have recommended going for Nvidia's solution assuming if price is close. In this case, the RX 6600 XT is more expensive than a RTX 3060 if we look purely at MSRP since market price fluctuates, and it is possible to get a RTX 3060 from the likes of EVGA at MSRP if you can wait. The reason for recommending Nvidia is because its got more features, I.e. CUDA cores for some professional work, faster RT (which may not be useful for some people, but it is still possible to run RT) and DLSS which can further improve performance. One can argue that AMD has FSR, but FSR also works with Nvidia cards. So Nvidia cards get both DLSS and FSR support which can be helpful over time when games get challenging for the card to manage. And don't forget that the humble RTX 3060 has 50% more VRAM and much higher memory bandwidth that allows it to stretch up to 1440p which the RX 6600 XT may struggle. That's my personal opinion. I have a RX 6800 XT and I chose it over a RTX 3080 because it is cheaper, more VRAM and generally runs faster at 1440p without RT which is not an important feature for me. In this case, the RX 6600 XT is the opposite.
Since we are adding pluses to tilt the purchase decision, I still have one huge negative that will always knock nvidia out of my purchases plans,

Their insistence in lock-in tech, anticonsumer consumers practices, dirty tactics and many others needs to change before I give them a penny.

Again, thats just me and I know that doesnt count for much, especially since people today dont seem to care about company morals and actions when evaluating a product.
 

NeoMorpheus

Posts: 883   +1,678
The much stranger part to me is his wording and how fast the tune seemed to change, it seemed like he went from what I'd call fairly strong apathy for DLSS, to calling it a desirable "killer feature", that could stand to be said and worded more neuturally I suppose.
Agreed.

Another thing that bothered me was the fact of ignoring the gpu targeted market (1080p) and given the prIcing bs we are currently living, he placed too much energy on the msrp.

msrp is pretty much irrelevant and worse, if you find this gpu at msrp, compared to the rest, it would be a bargain!
 

Irata

Posts: 1,756   +2,936
I don't really have an issue with their approach, given they are acting, at least in part, on their own communities feedback, the people they in theory at least make the content for. They still review the cards totally 'normally' but do mention / cover the value adds / extra features or nuances that either brand may also offer towards the end of the articles.

The much stranger part to me is his wording and how fast the tune seemed to change, it seemed like he went from what I'd call fairly strong apathy for DLSS, to calling it a desirable "killer feature", that could stand to be said and worded more neuturally I suppose.


Yeah I tend to agree, general rast performance aside, these are extra features that could and should at least be considered case by case.
Definitely agree, but the interesting part is that AMD extra features like a resizable bar implementation that actually gives a performance benefit (SAM) and the hardware scheduler (vs. nVidia‘s software scheduler) that should make Radeon cards perform better with older / weaker CPU are neither mentioned nor reviewed.

It could be that e.g. SAM gives no benefit on the 6600XT or that this particular model does not perform better with older CPU but since this was neither addressed nor tested I have no idea.

But either way, these are AMD specific features / advantages just like DLSS and RT are nVidia ones.
 

b3rdm4n

Posts: 48   +44
But either way, these are AMD specific features / advantages just like DLSS and RT are nVidia ones.
Agreed on that too, in the monthly QA's they even addressed these things, specifically say the Scheduler and CPU overhead as being an AMD talking point, so I'd have also expected them to touch on what AMD has that is a potential talking point or advantage too, especially given the lower end of the scale/price point this card occupies, people are less likely to have a super high-end system powering it compared to high-end cards.