New Filing Hints To The Radeon RX 6600 XT's Impending Launch

AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT
AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (Image credit: VideoCardz)

AMD's Radeon RX 6600 XT is ready to shake up the list of best graphics cards and join the upper tiers of our GPU benchmarks hierarchy. PC Partner (via Harukaze5719) has filed its Radeon RX 6600 XT today before Korea's National Radio Research Agency (RRA) for certification. PC Partner isn't exactly a household name, but the company is one of the leading global manufacturers of graphics cards. The submission implies that the Radeon RX 6600 XT shouldn't be too far off.

Leaked GPU-Z screenshots reportedly exposed the primary specifications for the Radeon RX 6600 XT. The information also hinted that the Navi 23 graphics card is potentially capped at PCIe 4.0 x8, just like the prior Radeon RX 5500 XT and Radeon RX 5500. The Radeon RX 6600 XT is rumored to land with 32 compute units (CUs), which would equal 2,048 stream processors (SPs). If accurate, 32 Ray Accelerators and 32MB of Infinity Cache should accompany the Radeon RX 6600 XT. Thus far, the RDNA 2 graphics card has been spotted with a 1,692 MHz base clock and 2,684 MHz boost clock, although these values could just be for AMD's reference design.

The schematics for Navi 23 (codename Dimgrey Cavefish) claimed that the silicon will likely utilize a 128-bit memory bus with eight memory channels. The maximum amount of GDDR6 memory that you can slap on Navi 23 is 16GB. However, we won't see that amount on a consumer model so AMD will probably save the 16GB configuration for its Radeon Pro SKUs.

AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT (Image credit: Korea National Radio Research Agency)

For the Radeon RX 6600 XT, we can expect 8GB of GDDR6 memory clocked at 16 Gbps. Across a modest 128-bit memory interface, the graphics card provides up to 256 GBps of memory throughput with the Infinity Cache balancing out the somewhat low bandwidth.

Although rumors of the Radeon RX 6600 XT have been stacking up for months now, we still haven't seen any benchmarks or retailer listings for the graphics card. The big Navi 23 leak from German publication Igor's Lab suggested that the Radeon RX 6600 XT could be on par with the Radeon RX 5700 XT. The latter is comparable to Nvidia's GeForce GTX 1080 Ti if you need another point of reference.

There's speculation that the Radeon RX 6600 XT may debut at $399 since it allegedly performs like a Radeon RX 5700 XT. However, that wouldn't make any sense, especially if AMD wants to seriously compete in the entry-level market. Let's forget the graphics card shortage and the scalping fiasco for a moment. The GeForce RTX 3060 launched at $329, so AMD should want to match the same MSRP with the Radeon RX 6600 XT. Even $350 would be more compelling price, because we simply can't see the Radeon RX 6600 XT succeeding with a $399 price tag.

Zhiye Liu
News Editor and Memory Reviewer

Zhiye Liu is a news editor and memory reviewer at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.

  • Sleepy_Hollowed
    This just might be the budget media center compact PC card to get, provided it can run 1080p games really well, and you don’t need UHD disc playback (those are still limited to intel 7th gen and above integrated graphics with SGX systems).

    If it can match say the GTX 1070 I’d get it in a hear beat if mine dies.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    Anywhere close to $400 for this card is a massive fail on AMD's part.

    It cannot be higher than the 3060ti MSRP and, realistically speaking, it needs to be slightly lower even. Just a bit higher than $300 is the only bracket I can see this card being a viable option. And $350 making it a tough call.

    Also, if AMD thinks they can get away with doing the consumers a quick one, they're in for a lot of disappointment. Their cards are already stacking up on shelves and not going away immediately, so if they're daft enough to think they can get away with it, then good riddance. I personally won't buy any video cards over $300 anyway.

    Regards.
    Reply