Radeon RX6600 vs. GeForce 3060/3060ti/4060

[battlezoby]

Someone suggested that the Nvidia Geforce was more in tune with the game developers. He seemed to know what he was talking about, but I'm under the impression that the for AMD hardware (Radeon) seems to be more in-sync with the AMD CPU's for pretty performance.

The hardware thing makes sense and aside from being a few generations behind the current trends, I even know a bit about it.

But the idea of the SOFTWARE with Nvidia working out better with Steam games isn't something going to be able to figure out for myself based on hardware specs.

Hoping some people pretty familiar with both might be able to weigh in. Be extra great if either
a dev or people familiar with the bug reports on several high-end games tend to reflect.

Probably too much too expect, but I can still hope.

Thanks.

[Phénomènes Mystiques]

As a Nvidia user I see rarely any issues (GTX 1080TI). I never used Radeon but have helped people with issues and two issues I see is boost clock being set wrong (below stable/standard clock) but is an easy fix and updates breaking stability; although, Nvidia has update issues at times but not many.

IDK if this helps but at least I tried.

[xSOSxHawkens]

You are both working on (at best) out of date opinions. Dont worry about the drivers that much.

Software wise, its a very easy and factual statement to say more Gamers play on software running on AMD hardware than any other type of combination. All the consoles plus all the AMD PC's = more than the rest of the PC's combined.

As someone who has used both GPU's (albeit predominantly AMD) for decades I can say the AMD cards have never let me down in any major ways.

The 6600 is OK, but try for the 6600xt or 6650xt as both are a good step up!

[C1REX]

battlezoby님이 먼저 게시:

Hoping some people pretty familiar with both might be able to weigh in.

I don't think you will get a better deal at $188 from Nvidia (the current lowest price for the 6600). While the Radeon 6600 is not the fastest, Nvidia's offer at this price is slower. You get a very good deal from Nvidia at $515 in the form of the 4070. As with everything, it's all about the price.

[Julien, cut it out.]

Developers program with (against) a graphics API, whether it is Vulkan, DirectX or OpenGL. The OS sends these calls from the mentioned APIs to the graphics driver. The graphics driver is responsible for the execution of the code on the hardware. Intel, AMD und Nvidia maintain each their own graphics driver.
Developers do not use these graphics driver. Since they write code against the graphics API, they do not really care - besides the performance on the specific hardware - what kind of hardware the code is executed on.
Each month graphics driver update are published. These updates aim to optimise performance for newly released games.
Intel, AMD and Nvidia driver teams work with game developers (at least the big ones) and support them.

On the theme that certain CPUs work better with certain GPUs:
There has been for the past 2 years a discussion centered around a certain "Driver Overhead" on the side of Nvidia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9guEsBly0I

There is a performance difference when running into a CPU limitation with the 7900 XTX, depending if it is on Intel or AMD CPU.
Spider-Man RT, Hitman 3, Horizon Zero Dawn, Rainbow Six Siege and Star Wars Jedi: Survivor, all run severly worse on the 13900K than on the 7800X3D while using a 7900 XTX.

Caveat; the 6000 MT/s memory (used in the video) is not great on Intel. 6000 MT/s is roughly the limit for the memory controller on the Ryzen 7000 systems. On Intel, you can exceed 7000 MT/s. Reducing the performance limitation on the CPU-side.

In general terms:
It seems on weaker performing CPUs (or when CPU limited), AMD cards that are in the same performance region as Nvidia's offerings, tend to perform better.

[hackintoshchap]

battlezoby님이 먼저 게시:

Someone suggested that the Nvidia Geforce was more in tune with the game developers. He seemed to know what he was talking about, but I'm under the impression that the for AMD hardware (Radeon) seems to be more in-sync with the AMD CPU's for pretty performance.

This was partly true around the time of the xbox 360 and PS3, but many developers have been developing more modern AMD bases consoles, Windows machines with AMD and Intel hardware. We have also seen a considerable rise in use of AMD GPUs in the PC space. Many modern companies are also looking at low powered Steamdeck and similar portable hardware. Arm processors are also starting to feature more on developers horizons, so much has changed over the past ten or so years.

The hardware thing makes sense and aside from being a few generations behind the current trends, I even know a bit about it.

But the idea of the SOFTWARE with Nvidia working out better with Steam games isn't something going to be able to figure out for myself based on hardware specs.

It doesn't, that is completely incorrect, Nvidia, Intel and AMD all have their own software, some stuff is open scarce and shared with small form factor portable hardware and consoles,some is PC only and a closed system. Either way developers have to figure out how to get two brands of processor and three brands of graphics cards working well in their titles.

Hoping some people pretty familiar with both might be able to weigh in. Be extra great if either
a dev or people familiar with the bug reports on several high-end games tend to reflect.

Probably too much too expect, but I can still hope.

Thanks.

The problem with PCs is that they are not all made to the same standards as a console. That is why consoles are easier to write for. A PS 5 or Xbox Series X are known quantities that developers target easily. A console is a cookie cutter build, where there are tens of millions of identical boxes.

The RX6600 doesn't have any recent Nvidia competition at anywhere near the price of either a new or used model. If you want similar Nvidia performance model, then it will be in the next price class above a RX6600, were you will also find better performing AMD models.

The bad news continues as an Nvidia 2060 is often shockingly close to a 3060 and the new 4060 often gets a handful less frames than a 3060.

[UserNotFound]

OP's comparing the RX 6600 to which nVidia GeForce card? GTX series or RTX series?

[battlezoby]

C1REX님이 먼저 게시:

As with everything, it's all about the price

Actually, there's an old (~20 years) saying about computer hardware:
Price, Speed, Quality: Pick 2.

[battlezoby]

UserNotFound님이 먼저 게시:

OP's comparing the RX 6600 to which nVidia GeForce card? GTX series or RTX series?

Not really focused on any specific card right now. Just what best in similar price ranges.

So whatever an RX 6600 sells for (maybe $200) do you have any suggestions as to how your best choice of nVidia would compare to it? I might go up to a $300, MAYBE $500. But again, I look for comparison of brands.

But if you have an opinion of how much RAM on a card will be needed to not see games need more sometime if the next 5 years or whatever, please let me know. I'm only concerned with meeting reasonable "Minimum specifications." I really don't care about graphics quality at all, just which games will run on what I hate.

As an example, about 15 years ago I was playing a lot of Starcraft II custom maps, and there was a "custom map" what someone had imported the Kobold models from World of Warcraft into it. It really liked that game/map and it was a lot of fun on $100 or whatever card.

Later, at a friend's house, I saw him play it, and was really surprised at how amazing the graphics were. Pretty sure his card was $1300 or more, and I didn't expect to see that type of "realistic" quality of lighting effects...

But it's was sort of a "oh wow" moment that last for maybe less than one minute or up to 4 minutes. After that, it's still just the same game...

Hypothetically speaking, if I have the same setup he did, including the better CPU and GPU, I would have just gotten used to the higher quality graphics, got bored of them, stopped playing attention to better graphics which did not affect the game play, and the gaming experience wouldn't have been any different for me.

UPDATE: If I had the quality of graphics on Kobolds, while maintaining the same FPS, I might have just turned down the graphics quality entirely. When playing, I'd still be thinking about the game itself - what my team members would be doing, and the other teams are doing. If I wasn't able to ignore the realistic sunlight and reflections that impressed, they would have just distracted from the games itself, and worth turning off because that's a bad thing to be distracted from under those circumstances.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

battlezoby님이 먼저 게시:

UserNotFound님이 먼저 게시:

OP's comparing the RX 6600 to which nVidia GeForce card? GTX series or RTX series?

Not really focused on any specific card right now. Just what best in similar price ranges.

So whatever an RX 6600 sells for (maybe $200) do you have any suggestions as to how your best choice of nVidia would compare to it? I might go up to a $300, MAYBE $500. But again, I look for comparison of brands.

Nvidia - RTX 3060 12 GB, RTX 4070.
AMD - RX 6700 XT, RX 7800 XT.

8 GB VRAM cards are not a good choice anymore unless you really have very minimal budget.

[C1REX]

battlezoby님이 먼저 게시:

But it's was sort of a "oh wow" moment that last for maybe less than one minute or up to 4 minutes. After that, it's still just the same game...

Hypothetically speaking, if I have the same setup he did, including the better CPU and GPU, I would have just gotten used to the higher quality graphics, got bored of them, stopped playing attention to better graphics which did not affect the game play, and the gaming experience wouldn't have been any different for me.

Nicely said. I have a relatively high-end PC, and this is exactly how it feels - just a few moments of 'wow' and then back to the normal feeling.

In terms of recommendations for the best value, I suggest the 6700XT 12GB at $299, the 6800 16GB for $389, and the 4070 12GB for $515.

The 6600 will likely provide a worse experience than on consoles, as some games are already capped at 30fps there. Stretching your budget to the 6700 XT would offer better value, in my opinion. The same applies to the 4070 - it's expensive but offers fantastic value, actually ranking as the best in my personal tier list.

[BionicSeaSerpent]

UserNotFound님이 먼저 게시:

OP's comparing the RX 6600 to which nVidia GeForce card? GTX series or RTX series?

the entire GeForce brand

[battlezoby]

UserNotFound님이 먼저 게시:

OP's comparing the RX 6600 to which nVidia GeForce card? GTX series or RTX series?

At this point, comparing it to the GeForce 3060, 3060ti, and/or 4060.

Opinions?

[Wichtelman]

battlezoby님이 먼저 게시:

UserNotFound님이 먼저 게시:

OP's comparing the RX 6600 to which nVidia GeForce card? GTX series or RTX series?

At this point, comparing it to the GeForce 3060, 3060ti, and/or 4060.

Opinions?

how about you research it yourself?

the rx 6600 is like 80$ cheaper than the rtx 3060 and about the same performance... if you care about extras you have to spend way more money to get something decent...

[UserNotFound]

battlezoby님이 먼저 게시:

UserNotFound님이 먼저 게시:

OP's comparing the RX 6600 to which nVidia GeForce card? GTX series or RTX series?

At this point, comparing it to the GeForce 3060, 3060ti, and/or 4060.

Opinions?

IF you're considering the RTX 3060 Ti/RTX 4060, then why not the RX 6700 XT? Very competitive against the RTX 3060 Ti, plus 50% more VRAM. Also, AMD has implemented FSR3 + FG in newer games, best implementation thus far is in Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora.

[BionicSeaSerpent]

UserNotFound님이 먼저 게시:

battlezoby님이 먼저 게시:

At this point, comparing it to the GeForce 3060, 3060ti, and/or 4060.

Opinions?

IF you're considering the RTX 3060 Ti/RTX 4060, then why not the RX 6700 XT? Very competitive against the RTX 3060 Ti, plus 50% more VRAM. Also, AMD has implemented FSR3 + FG in newer games, best implementation thus far is in Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora.

FSR 3 being open source is basically here to invalidate DLSS. its bloody awesome