As for pricing and availability, that's where the Radeon RX 6600 XT appears to offer the biggest advantage of all. To best illustrate that, here's a few cost per frame graphs.

Yuka said:I would buy that argument if it wasn't for the fact both AMD and nVidia are reeking in the cash like fishermen on a school of a million fish. Warhammer III is another new game and this one uses the Warscape Engine 3 which is used exclusively by the Total War series. Here the GeForce GPUs currently enjoy a small performance advantage.

Memory

Jumping to 1440p doesn't change the picture all that much. We're still looking at 5700 XT-like performance, which is also close to the 3060 Ti in this title. This means that these AMD graphics cards can have more memory for less cash, even though with the RX 6600 XT, at least, AMD opted for 8GB of GDDR6 memory, rather than the 12GB of GDDR6 that the Nvidia GeForce RTX 3060 brings to the table.

Watch Dogs: Legion is another game where the 6600 XT proves its essentially a 5700 XT in terms of performance. With 72 fps on average, it found itself situated between the RTX 3060 Ti and 3060 at 1080p, but that meant it was 18% slower than the 6700 XT, which isn't a bad result. It's AMD's own fault for pushing VRAM capacities with earlier RX 6000 series launches. When Nvidia launched the RTX 3080 with 10GB VRAM and then kept the RTX 3070 Ti, RTX 3070, and RTX 3060 Ti at 8GB, AMD effectively made a statement with the RX 6700 XT, RX 6800, 6800 XT, and RX 6900 XT that 8GB simply wasn't sufficient. Of course, that's not entirely true, but there are certainly games and settings that will now have issues on GPUs that 'only' have 8GB of memory — games promoted by AMD, not surprisingly. Having said that, once you take the full picture into account, it's hard not to argue that the GeForce RTX 3060 is the better buy and is even worth a premium. This is because when you start to look at what each product offers beyond rasterization performance, there's not much to talk about when it comes to the 6600 XT.

Graphics Features

The market has its own rules. As long as there is larger demand than the amount of GPUs AMD can produce, they will keep the prices high. That's just how (free) markets work. For a bottle of water, you usually pay less than a Dollar. Now, in the desert, with the next station being 500 miles away, you would pay even 10 Dollars (or 100?) for a bottle of water if you are thirsty. That margin was extended at 1440p where the 6600 XT trailed the 6700 XT by 19%, rendering 60 fps on average, which is a solid result. As we've seen before, Doom Eternal is very memory intensive when using the Ultra Nightmare setting, and while we could simply tune the settings for better results, I'd rather take a look at how these graphics cards perform when saturated as it should provide some insight into future performance.

Overall the Radeon RX 6600 XT is the faster GPU, which we already knew from previous testing, but the margin is slimmer than first thought. The delta between the two GPUs will always depend on the games used for testing – or in your case, the games you actually care about. Ray tracing performance seems fairly even in the few titles we tested, though we'd say the RTX 3060 has better support right now overall. CS:GO really is a CPU benchmark at this point, with any half-decent GPU resulting in heavily CPU-bound testing, but it's always hotly requested, so we feel compelled to include it, and don't mind doing so when there are so many other games to balance out the results. As expected, we're looking at similar performance between these two GPUs at the three tested resolutions. You can see why AMD were like 'wink wink nudge nudge' about the whole 6600 XT being a 1080p gaming GPU, they were probably hoping to persuade reviewers to ignore 1440p. Here we see that with 51 fps on average it only matched the 5700 XT and that meant now it was just 6% faster than the RTX 3060 and 16% slower than the 3060 Ti and 22% slower than the 6700 XT, so a weak result at 1440p. Where the Radeon 6600 XT does shine is when looking at power consumption. In our test with Doom at 1440p, it used no more power than the older 5600 XT and yet it managed to deliver 23% more performance. The new GPU is more efficient, with significantly lower power consumption, and definitely a more technically elegant solution, though that doesn't make a huge difference in terms of actual temperatures or performance. I can absolutely say the RDNA 2 architecture is certainly a better technology than its RDNA 1 forebear, but the in-game results in this case are barely any different.Performance in Apex Legends is very competitive, but this title isn't CPU limited, at least not with these GPUs using the maximum in-game quality settings. Both GPUs allowed for solid 144 Hz gaming at 1080p and even at 1440p you're still looking at a high refresh rate experience.