GeForce RTX 3050 vs. Radeon RX 6600: 50 Game Benchmark

[Steve]

The Radeon RX 6600 is a catch at less than $300, but it wouldn't be right to simply recommend it without a GeForce alternative (RTX 3050), which is why we've tested them across 51 games at 1080p and 1440p.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2505-geforce-rtx-3050-vs-radeon-6600/

 

[m3tavision]

Seems really weird... because the 6600xt is going for $339 at NewEgg...
(Which would skew the result even further...)

btw... 6600 is going for $279

 

[kiwigraeme]

I clicked two 2 relevant amazon links
MSI Gaming GeForce RTX 3050 8GB GDDR6 128-Bit $349 4.8 rating
My 2nd oldest PC with a RTX 2060 is slightly more powerful than this and I got it for same price plus 2 AAA games thrown in

Shouldn't a 3050 at least equal a 2060?
real sad for people at this end of market - hopefully they will see these come down in price in the coming months at more cards are sitting unsold .

Still beats my third oldest PC with a 1060 - but that card was cheap as - a why they were the number 1 card for so long .

Try and get your friends to hold out I think for $350 to $400 you should get a good card in a few more months .
Least the 4090 monstrosity coming will give you the "best" for a silly price

 

[Irata]

Seems really weird... because the 6600xt is going for $339 at NewEgg...
(Which would skew the result even further...)

btw... 6600 is going for $279

Newegg‘s best selling RX 6600 is down to $259 with a $20 coupon. The sad part is that it‘s outsold by several (!) different RTX 3050 models that cost $329.

Shows how severely lacking in intelligence the large part of gamers are. Tbh, the state of the GPU market is no surprise.

Note: The average fps difference between the 6600 and 3050 is the same as between a 6800 (non-XT) and a 3090 Ti Supprim as tested by HUB @1440p.

 

[Avro Arrow]

This is how ALL comparison tests should be conducted. Two products in the same price range ALWAYS provides an apples-to-apples comparison because they cost the same.

This article serves to underscore the horrible value offered by nVidia with their GeForce cards when compared to Radeon cards at the same price. I knew that this was going to be an absolute curbstomp for the Radeon as soon as I saw the products involved. What I didn't know was that you would have to pay ~$50USD MORE for a GeForce card that has ~¾ of the Radeon's performance.

I'm really starting to realise that, unlike when I started gaming seriously, PC gamers today are completely brain-dead when it comes to tech. They can't even get it right when there are only two brands to choose from. When I started being a serious gamer back in the 90s, we had many different brands of video cards to choose from like ATi, Matrox, 3dfx, Diamond, S3, Oak, CirrusLogic and Orchid so we had to do our homework to get the best card for the price.

 

[waclark]

SNIP

I'm really starting to realise that, unlike when I started gaming seriously, PC gamers today are completely brain-dead when it comes to tech. They can't even get it right when there are only two brands to choose from. When I started being a serious gamer back in the 90s, we had many different brands of video cards to choose from like ATi, Matrox, 3dfx, Diamond, Oak, CirrusLogic and Orchid so we had to do our homework to get the best card for the price.

Well, I think some people choose nVidia due to reliability and support. I've had all of the cards you mentioned above, except CirrusLogic. I recall days when AMD drivers were crap. nVidia seems to be doing a good job of updating drivers and I can't recall a game crash from bad video drivers.

That's not to say AMD is crap now, it's just that there's history for some of us and we're hesitant to move.

 

[Nobina]

Well, I think some people choose nVidia due to reliability and support. I've had all of the cards you mentioned above, except CirrusLogic. I recall days when AMD drivers were crap. nVidia seems to be doing a good job of updating drivers and I can't recall a game crash from bad video drivers.

That's not to say AMD is crap now, it's just that there's history for some of us and we're hesitant to move.

Some people would opt for Nvidia due to more stable drivers, sure, but when we're talking about a huge performance difference plus the faster card is also cheaper I'd get AMD regardless of the features Nvidia offers. At the end of the day if you buy a much slower GPU and you can't hit desired framerate what are more stable drivers worth?

 

[nnguy2]

This is how ALL comparison tests should be conducted. Two products in the same price range ALWAYS provides an apples-to-apples comparison because they cost the same.

This article serves to underscore the horrible value offered by nVidia with their GeForce cards when compared to Radeon cards at the same price. I knew that this was going to be an absolute curbstomp for the Radeon as soon as I saw the products involved. What I didn't know was that you would have to pay ~$50USD MORE for a GeForce card that has ~¾ of the Radeon's performance.

I'm really starting to realise that, unlike when I started gaming seriously, PC gamers today are completely brain-dead when it comes to tech. They can't even get it right when there are only two brands to choose from. When I started being a serious gamer back in the 90s, we had many different brands of video cards to choose from like ATi, Matrox, 3dfx, Diamond, Oak, CirrusLogic and Orchid so we had to do our homework to get the best card for the price.

6900XT and 3080 are the same price atm. 6900XT stomps the 3080 even with DLSS and RTX bs flavor thrown in.

 

[m3tavision]

Well, I think some people choose nVidia due to reliability and support. I've had all of the cards you mentioned above, except CirrusLogic. I recall days when AMD drivers were crap. nVidia seems to be doing a good job of updating drivers and I can't recall a game crash from bad video drivers.

That's not to say AMD is crap now, it's just that there's history for some of us and we're hesitant to move.

That was in the past, but has not been true for the last 3+ years...

AMD's Adrenalin Drivers are better than NVidia GeForce Experience... I use both and anybody who does, will tell you the same. Raja's AMD isn't the same as Dr Su's AMD..

 

[nnguy2]

That was in the past, but has not been true for the last 3+ years...

AMD's Adrenalin Drivers are better than NVidia GeForce Experience... I use both and anybody who does, will tell you the same. Raja's AMD isn't the same as Dr Su's AMD..

Raja joining Intel was the best thing that could happen to AMD

 

[waclark]

That was in the past, but has not been true for the last 3+ years...

AMD's Adrenalin Drivers are better than NVidia GeForce Experience... I use both and anybody who does, will tell you the same. Raja's AMD isn't the same as Dr Su's AMD..

Well, I can't give first hand testimony but I am seeing YouTube videos from the past year regarding AMD driver issues. Not saying you're wrong, but even 3 years isn't that long. I keep my GPUs at least 3 years and sometimes longer.

 

[waclark]

Some people would opt for Nvidia due to more stable drivers, sure, but when we're talking about a huge performance difference plus the faster card is also cheaper I'd get AMD regardless of the features Nvidia offers. At the end of the day if you buy a much slower GPU and you can't hit desired framerate what are more stable drivers worth?

To answer your question, stable drivers are worth more than fast frame rates that crash the computer. These days, we are well above 60FPS and at some point, what's the difference between say 175 and 150 FPS? Probably not enough to matter, IMHO.

I am not saying AMD is not better in this example, only answering the question of why some people stick with nVidia even when the value isn't as good as AMD.

 

[torchyear]

Well, I think some people choose nVidia due to reliability and support. I've had all of the cards you mentioned above, except CirrusLogic. I recall days when AMD drivers were crap. nVidia seems to be doing a good job of updating drivers and I can't recall a game crash from bad video drivers.

That's not to say AMD is crap now, it's just that there's history for some of us and we're hesitant to move.

Yes there are two very specific cases where I think the rtx3050 might be preferable: you absolutely need the nVidia validated Studio drivers for your application; and you absolutely must use NVENC for some reason.

Same could apply for situations that only use CUDA... but by this stage one would be better off looking higher up the food chain anyway.

 

[waclark]

Yes there are two very specific cases where I think the rtx3050 might be preferable: you absolutely need the nVidia validated Studio drivers for your application; and you absolutely must use NVENC for some reason.

Same could apply for situations that only use CUDA... but by this stage one would be better off looking higher up the food chain anyway.

In this specific case, I believe you are right. In regards to Nvidia over all, I am under the impression that it fares better at 4K resolutions than AMD, but that may not be a universal truth either.

 

[sorten]

Damn, $300+ to get decent framerates at 1080p. I'm fortunate that I'm content with 1080p gaming and, so far, my NVidia 1660Ti hasn't had trouble with any game I've wanted to play. The crypto and scalper problems have killed my desire to replace the card every two years.

 

[b3rdm4n]

6900XT and 3080 are the same price atm. 6900XT stomps the 3080

Stomps, lol. anyway...........

Nvidia's mindshare is still doing a lot of their heavy lifting it seems, it could still take AMD another 1-3 generations to shake the driver reputation, time with the outright fastest/best card/s on the market can accelerate that.

What I see a lot of people doing is not factoring in local prices and factors to decisions, if you take the prices shown then no doubt the conclusion is clear, absolutely no argument against that, but not nearly enough people do their own cost per frame analysis that takes into account their unique buying circumstances, including performance and feature targets, local prices of products, intended games to be played, service lifecycle etc. They just think "I know Nvidia make good video cards, they're the safe bet, I'll get the best one that fits my budget", where for many, a Radeon card would not only suffice, but possibly even be better value for money, as demonstrated by this comparison. A couple of months ago I could not convince a friend whatsoever that a 6700XT was a better buy than the 3060Ti he wanted, despite it being significantly cheaper, but you know what, he's happy with his purchase and stands by it, hard to argue with that I guess.

 

[money]

What about frame times? Some time ago Geforce cards always felt smoother because of better frame times, has AMD improved in that regard?

 

[Nobina]

To answer your question, stable drivers are worth more than fast frame rates that crash the computer. These days, we are well above 60FPS and at some point, what's the difference between say 175 and 150 FPS? Probably not enough to matter, IMHO.

I am not saying AMD is not better in this example, only answering the question of why some people stick with nVidia even when the value isn't as good as AMD.

If the difference is 50FPS vs 60FPS then it's a big deal. If the difference is 150FPS vs 175FPS then I agree it doesn't matter. AMD driver issues usually involve things like signal loss, driver crashing and glitches, minor things but over time it can accumulate and be quite annoying, speaking from experience.

 

[Lounds]

Stomps, lol. anyway...........

Nvidia's mindshare is still doing a lot of their heavy lifting it seems, it could still take AMD another 1-3 generations to shake the driver reputation, time with the outright fastest/best card/s on the market can accelerate that.

What I see a lot of people doing is not factoring in local prices and factors to decisions, if you take the prices shown then no doubt the conclusion is clear, absolutely no argument against that, but not nearly enough people do their own cost per frame analysis that takes into account their unique buying circumstances, including performance and feature targets, local prices of products, intended games to be played, service lifecycle etc. They just think "I know Nvidia make good video cards, they're the safe bet, I'll get the best one that fits my budget", where for many, a Radeon card would not only suffice, but possibly even be better value for money, as demonstrated by this comparison. A couple of months ago I could not convince a friend whatsoever that a 6700XT was a better buy than the 3060Ti he wanted, despite it being significantly cheaper, but you know what, he's happy with his purchase and stands by it, hard to argue with that I guess.

I wanted a RX 6700 XT but they were costing £200 more than the 3060ti in August 2020. So I opted for a 3060ti and I am very happy with it. The main reason for the 6700 XT was I felt 12GB VRAM will benefit it in the long run and my feelings are 8GB could be what 2GB cards were like a few years ago where games become unplayable.

 

[Lounds]

If the difference is 50FPS vs 60FPS then it's a big deal. If the difference is 150FPS vs 175FPS then I agree it doesn't matter. AMD driver issues usually involve things like signal loss, driver crashing and glitches, minor things but over time it can accumulate and be quite annoying, speaking from experience.

I had an RX 470 and my experience was AMD drivers were solid and over all the software suite for tweaking settings was better than Nvidia control panel. So for me I prefer AMD and I'm a 3060ti owner.

 

[BSim500]

The £299 RTX 3050 is barely +10% faster than the GTX 1660 that I paid £157 for a couple of years ago, but also exactly double the price of what the same tier 1050Ti, 1650 & 1650 Super all were (£149-£159) made worse by 2 years of nothing at all (no RTX 2050 then RTX 3050 was delayed by a year). There's definitely a place in the market for budget cards, but RTX 3050 is a massive flop that's literally priced double what it should be, and tech sites should be more vocal about calling the recent crippled / overpriced 2022 "offerings" by nVidia (and AMD) after sitting on their asses doing nothing for the budget gamer segment during 2020-2021 for what they are - "insulting".

 

[Irata]

Pricing wise the 3050 is now getting ever closer to the 6600 XT - cheapest 3050 on Newegg is $326, cheapest 6600 XT is $339. And after rebate card it‘s $319.

 

[m3tavision]

To answer your question, stable drivers are worth more than fast frame rates that crash the computer. These days, we are well above 60FPS and at some point, what's the difference between say 175 and 150 FPS? Probably not enough to matter, IMHO.

I am not saying AMD is not better in this example, only answering the question of why some people stick with nVidia even when the value isn't as good as AMD.

I am suggesting you are talking out of your behind, because EVEYONE in the industry including people who own BOTH cards, will tell you that AMD's Driver are better and their software is better than NVidia's GeForce experience.

You've just said you have no 1st hand experience.. and you only buy a GPU every 3 years. While I install 15 drivers a years between 3 Gaming PC with varied brands of GPUs. (I prefer EVGA GPU's).

But today, with GCN gone and a new RDNA wrapper... it just marketing and ignorance to suggest NVidia has better drivers. I should say, they both have their own quirks, but I have more of them with GFE. NVidia has their share of driver issues...

But again, since AMD new RDNA(2) GPUs, their driver stack has better frame times (ie: the have more consistency) & the software suite itself seems more professional..

Again 5 years ago, this wasn't true...

 

[BadThad]

WHEW....that's a LOT of work! Great article! Looks like AMD slapped NVidia around this time!

 

[OLDmacDonald]

Used RX6600s can be found for between $150 and 200, making this card one heck of a steal. Very pleased with mine. Paid 170 for it.