RX 6600 Upgrade

[BLoCKANDLOADED ⭕⃤]

is it worth it to upgrade to RX 6600 from GTX 1650 Super?

Two choices only

[GOD RAYS ON ULTRA™]

It depends on what type of screen you're using and what your resolution and refresh rate is.

The 6600 is substantially faster in just about everything. That doesn't mean you should upgrade though.

For example, if you're only running a low resolution like 1920x1080p and just 60fps then the 1650 super is more than adequate here.

You should also list your PC specs, especially your CPU. The newer amd cards like the 6600 will run with their highest potential in a newer computer system that supports the PCI express 4.0 standard.

Putting them in an older PC where this support is absent isn't recommended.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Depends on rest of your specs and PSU. Generally speaking probably not really, would look for somewhat bigger upgrade to be worth it like RTX 3060 Ti or RX 6700 XT.

[🦜Cloud Boy🦜]

yes, it's worth upgrading.
gtx 1650s is a junk card, it's even slower than gtx 1060, which was a ideal 1080p card 5 years ago, now it can't even run RDR2 / Cyberpunk at 30fps high settings. Moreover, 1650's 4gb vram makes things even worse.

Rx 6600/xt is a ideal 1080p card at the moment. it's almost 2x faster than 1650s.

[BLoCKANDLOADED ⭕⃤]

Originally posted by Hardʬare Hero:

It depends on what type of screen you're using and what your resolution and refresh rate is.

The 6600 is substantially faster in just about everything. That doesn't mean you should upgrade though.

For example, if you're only running a low resolution like 1920x1080p and just 60fps then the 1650 super is more than adequate here.

You should also list your PC specs, especially your CPU. The newer amd cards like the 6600 will run with their highest potential in a newer computer system that supports the PCI express 4.0 standard.

Putting them in an older PC where this support is absent isn't recommended.

My Specs is:

i5 10400F
GTX 1650 Super
MSI Pro motherboard
16 GB RAM
2 TB HDD
512 M.2
240 SSD
120 SSD
500 Watts PSU

[GOD RAYS ON ULTRA™]

I would take a gtx 1650 super over the rx 6600 any day. The 6600 is faster but so what. It doesn't have encoder, it only has 8 lanes.

Talk about junk, there's your junk right there.

[Fake]

Forget the Rx 6600. Get yourself an RX 580.

The RX 580 is still a beast of a card for 1080p gaming. And, you can pick one up for about $100 used.

[Nabster]

Don't think rx580 is much of an upgrade from gtx1650

[Tomi Montana]

Originally posted by Fake:

Forget the Rx 6600. Get yourself an RX 580.

The RX 580 is still a beast of a card for 1080p gaming. And, you can pick one up for about $100 used.

I agree with Nabster above me, the RX 580 won't be that much of a upgrade. He will be really quickly pressured to upgrade again.
I would bump it atleast to a RX 6600 8gb too.

[Illusion of Progress]

Yes, it's worth it. It's substantially faster than a GTX 1650 of any variety. It's close to an RTX 3060 (plus or minus) outside of ray tracing, but uses less power and as a result may tend to run cooler, and is much cheaper. Still, I'd recommend the RX 6600 XT if you can (which is closer to the RTX 3060 Ti) but if you don't want to push the budget, the non-XT is just fine. It is probably about your best option at any rate.

Maybe give Intel a look, too, if you're not against the unknown. The Arc A750 is another possible option. It's (and this is very roughly speaking due to how variable things are with Intel's GPUs so far) in that same performance segment (as the RX 6600 and RTX 3060), it just got driver updates that uplifted performance and took care of some problematic titles and uplifted DirectX 9 titles, and had a price drop to $250, so it's basically competing well with the RX 6600 now (and both are making the RTX 3060 a downright miserable looking option). It does use a "not insignificant" amount more power, though.

If you want to upgrade in that performance-range, those are your two best options IMO. The RTX 3060 is, and by far, a poor option against either of those. Pretty much below the $500 price point at least (and often even above it), I wouldn't recommend nVidia right now unless you absolutely need something only they offer. And then be prepared to pay for it.

Originally posted by Hardʬare Hero:

It depends on what type of screen you're using and what your resolution and refresh rate is.

The 6600 is substantially faster in just about everything. That doesn't mean you should upgrade though.

For example, if you're only running a low resolution like 1920x1080p and just 60fps then the 1650 super is more than adequate here.

You should also list your PC specs, especially your CPU. The newer amd cards like the 6600 will run with their highest potential in a newer computer system that supports the PCI express 4.0 standard.

Putting them in an older PC where this support is absent isn't recommended.

While I agree with everything up until that last sentence, we need to consider that someone looking at, and asking about, upgrade options is probably in the position of looking at more performance than they presently have, rather than asking purely to know if it's faster.

Sure, a GTX 1650 Super can be fine. Alternatively, it can also be inadequate. It depends. I run at 1920 x 1200 at 60 Hz and I have a faster GTX 1060 and it's still "okay" but I'm looking for more too, so I can definitely imagine a LOT of scenarios where a slower card might be, well, slower than someone might want. So if OP has indeed decided that, who is anyone else to tell them what is good enough for them? So my thought process is, if OP is asking, I'm of the presumption that they are wanting more performance, but maybe my presumption is incorrect.

As for the last statement, it's irrelevant here. An RX 6600 isn't going to see a performance uplift from PCI Express 4.0 that you will ever notice nor miss. Even when measured, it's often within margin of error on all but the topmost GPUs (where even then it's small most of the time). You vastly overstate this particular factor all of the time despite there being so much information out there that shows it's nowhere near make or break.

Originally posted by Hardʬare Hero:

I would take a gtx 1650 super over the rx 6600 any day. The 6600 is faster but so what. It doesn't have encoder, it only has 8 lanes.

Wait, what? This is like missing the forest for the trees.

"The end result is higher sure, but one of the many variables that goes into determining that end result is only X."

That's literally what I'm reading and I can't believe it.

It's like saying "yeah the result of 2 x 15 is better than the result of 4 x 5, but there's only TWO of that one variable". Are you for real?

The need for an encoder is also a subjective, not a broadly general, thing. Yes it can be a worthwhile reason for going with nVidia, but again, I'm erring on the presumption that if OP is asking about an RX 6600, that they probably haven't decided they need for an nVidia GPU for encoding reasons.

[BLoCKANDLOADED ⭕⃤]

Originally posted by Illusion of Progress:

Yes, it's worth it. It's substantially faster than a GTX 1650 of any variety. It's close to an RTX 3060 (plus or minus) outside of ray tracing, but uses less power and as a result may tend to run cooler, and is much cheaper. Still, I'd recommend the RX 6600 XT if you can (which is closer to the RTX 3060 Ti) but if you don't want to push the budget, the non-XT is just fine. It is probably about your best option at any rate.

Maybe give Intel a look, too, if you're not against the unknown. The Arc A750 is another possible option. It's (and this is very roughly speaking due to how variable things are with Intel's GPUs so far) in that same performance segment (as the RX 6600 and RTX 3060), it just got driver updates that uplifted performance and took care of some problematic titles and uplifted DirectX 9 titles, and had a price drop to $250, so it's basically competing well with the RX 6600 now (and both are making the RTX 3060 a downright miserable looking option). It does use a "not insignificant" amount more power, though.

If you want to upgrade in that performance-range, those are your two best options IMO. The RTX 3060 is, and by far, a poor option against either of those. Pretty much below the $500 price point at least (and often even above it), I wouldn't recommend nVidia right now unless you absolutely need something only they offer. And then be prepared to pay for it.

Originally posted by Hardʬare Hero:

It depends on what type of screen you're using and what your resolution and refresh rate is.

The 6600 is substantially faster in just about everything. That doesn't mean you should upgrade though.

For example, if you're only running a low resolution like 1920x1080p and just 60fps then the 1650 super is more than adequate here.

You should also list your PC specs, especially your CPU. The newer amd cards like the 6600 will run with their highest potential in a newer computer system that supports the PCI express 4.0 standard.

Putting them in an older PC where this support is absent isn't recommended.

While I agree with everything up until that last sentence, we need to consider that someone looking at, and asking about, upgrade options is probably in the position of looking at more performance than they presently have, rather than asking purely to know if it's faster.

Sure, a GTX 1650 Super can be fine. Alternatively, it can also be inadequate. It depends. I run at 1920 x 1200 at 60 Hz and I have a faster GTX 1060 and it's still "okay" but I'm looking for more too, so I can definitely imagine a LOT of scenarios where a slower card might be, well, slower than someone might want. So if OP has indeed decided that, who is anyone else to tell them what is good enough for them? So my thought process is, if OP is asking, I'm of the presumption that they are wanting more performance, but maybe my presumption is incorrect.

As for the last statement, it's irrelevant here. An RX 6600 isn't going to see a performance uplift from PCI Express 4.0 that you will ever notice nor miss. Even when measured, it's often within margin of error on all but the topmost GPUs (where even then it's small most of the time). You vastly overstate this particular factor all of the time despite there being so much information out there that shows it's nowhere near make or break.

Originally posted by Hardʬare Hero:

I would take a gtx 1650 super over the rx 6600 any day. The 6600 is faster but so what. It doesn't have encoder, it only has 8 lanes.

Wait, what? This is like missing the forest for the trees.

"The end result is higher sure, but one of the many variables that goes into determining that end result is only X."

That's literally what I'm reading and I can't believe it.

It's like saying "yeah the result of 2 x 15 is better than the result of 4 x 5, but there's only TWO of that one variable". Are you for real?

The need for an encoder is also a subjective, not a broadly general, thing. Yes it can be a worthwhile reason for going with nVidia, but again, I'm erring on the presumption that if OP is asking about an RX 6600, that they probably haven't decided they need for an nVidia GPU for encoding reasons.

Thank for the detailed information. i nearly forgotten that theres an Intel GPU option but as per checking in our market here in my location is rarely available for the Intel ARC A750. And yeah im Taking a look at between RX 6600 and RX 6600 XT. ( RTX 3060 hell expensive for the performance but i like the NVIDIA overlay/Geforce Experience Softwares)

[UserNotFound]

Originally posted by Hardʬare Hero:

I would take a gtx 1650 super over the rx 6600 any day. The 6600 is faster but so what. It doesn't have encoder, it only has 8 lanes.

Talk about junk, there's your junk right there.

Wow, first post seemed reasonable enough, but it's this post that shows your true color. OP hadn't even mentioned the need for streaming where NVENC matters, And at 1080P, even 1440P, PCIe 4 x8 (equivalent to PCIe 3x16) has more than sufficient bandwidth needed, so the buswidth of PCIe Gen 4x8 is a non-issue.

[carl]

Originally posted by UserNotFound:

Originally posted by Hardʬare Hero:

I would take a gtx 1650 super over the rx 6600 any day. The 6600 is faster but so what. It doesn't have encoder, it only has 8 lanes.

Talk about junk, there's your junk right there.

Wow, first post seemed reasonable enough, but it's this post that shows your true color. OP hadn't even mentioned the need for streaming where NVENC matters, And at 1080P, even 1440P, PCIe 4 x8 (equivalent to PCIe 3x16) has more than sufficient bandwidth needed, so the buswidth of PCIe Gen 4x8 is a non-issue.

I think someone confused the RX 6600 with the RX 6500 XT. Different beasts however it shows how one poor product can hurt brand image.

[It's Chase]

The 6600 XT is a better buy. It performs slightly better than a 3060 in most games. You can get them for around $300 off ebay easily

The base 6600 is junk since it's just priced wrong.

[Illusion of Progress]

Originally posted by It's Chase:

The 6600 XT is a better buy. It performs slightly better than a 3060 in most games. You can get them for around $300 off ebay easily

The base 6600 is junk since it's just priced wrong.

Oh, yeah... OP, pay attention to this. I had just woken up and gave some inaccurate information in spots in the post you marked as an answer. The RX 6600 (non-XT) is typically a bit slower than the RTX 3060 whereas I was sort of likening them as closer to equals. It's instead the RX 6600 XT that more competes with the RTX 3060, even if it's slightly ahead. I confused the way they compare based on tiers even though they don't fully line up that way in all spots.

It's sort of like this IIRC (I'm excluding AMD xx50 models and nVidia Ti models for simplicity)...

RX 6600 < RTX 3060 < RX 6600 XT < RTX 3060 Ti < RX 6700 XT < RTX 3070 < RX 6800 < RTX 3080 < RX 6800 XT

Someone feel free to nitpick/correct that if it's slightly wrong, but I believe that's about right for rasterized performance. At the very least, I need to correct myself on mixing up which RX 6600 more competes with the RTX 3060. Obviously ray tracing changes things and obviously it's hard to define performance at a singular point when it varies from case to case, game to game, drivers change performance over time, etc.

Ultimately, pricing favors AMD either way, but still want to correct myself.

I disagree that the RX 6600 is "junk" though, but I did already state I share the opinion that the RX 6600 XT is what I feel is the better option. But then again, then I'd be saying the same thing about the 6700 XT over the 6600 XT (6800 XT over that depends as it's seemingly drying up in availability and pricing is going up). The RX 6600 non-XT largely just had a bad reputation out the gate because it landed in performance right where the older 5600 XT was, but cost a bit more (and this was during the Etherum market so prices were all high and availability was poor) so it sort of got stuck with a bad reputation.

It's not an awful buy, but the XT is often the slightly better price/performance over it.

[GOD RAYS ON ULTRA™]

You guys like buying trash I guess. The 6600 is so gimped, cut-down, cheap. But hey, it's fast right!

The 1650 super is a better all around GPU. It doesn't have the cut corners that the 6600 has. You get Nvidia drivers that a far better.

The 6600 will make your CPU do encoding for you, so you lose that optimization if that's useful. AMD Radeon driver software looks like someone vomited on my screen.

Someone mentioned the rx 580 and that thing can't even launch for spoken. Guess what? A gtx 960 can!!

TRASH is what the 6600 is. That whole amd line up of 6500-6600/xt whatever, all garbage! The only one that makes remotely any sense at all is the rx 6400.