AMD's Radeon RX 6600 (non-XT) is the smaller brother to the RX 6600 XT launched in August. These cards are targeted at the plethora of 1080p Full HD gamers out there—the "RX 580 and RX 570" equivalent of 2021. Under the hood, the Radeon RX 6600 is powered by the same Navi 23 silicon as the RX 6600 XT. For the non-XT, AMD reduced the core count from 2048 cores to 1792. VRAM remains at 8 GB GDDR6 128-bit; the only surprise here is that memory chips from Hynix are used—this the first time we're seeing GDDR6 from Hynix. AMD also hasn't made any changes to the L3 cache on the GPU, which helps achieve the performance target. On Navi 23, this cache is relatively small with just 32 MB (Navi 22: 96 MB, Navi 21: 128 MB). This is certainly a compromise to reduce the chip's die size and manufacturing cost.

On average, across our brand-new 25-game strong test suite, we found the RX 6600 to match the RX 5700 and RTX 2070 exactly at Full HD. Compared to the NVIDIA RTX 3060, RX 6600's direct rival, the NVIDIA card has a tiny 4% lead. The Radeon RX 5700 XT is 10% faster, and the RX 6600 XT is 13% ahead and sits right in the middle of the gap between the RX 6600 and RX 6700 XT. NVIDIA's RTX 3060 Ti is 30% faster than the RX 6600. The aging Vega 64 is 13% behind the RX 6600, just like last-generation's RTX 2060. What's important to point out is that the RX 6600 really is built for 1080p. If you look at our performance results for 1440p and 4K, you'll see that the card falls behind relative to competing cards at those resolutions. The underlying reason is that the L3 cache is relatively small, just big enough for the gaming workloads of 1080p, and cache hit rates go down at higher resolutions.

Just like all the other cards available at this time, Gigabyte's Radeon RX 6600 Eagle doesn't come with a factory overclock—a lost opportunity if you ask me. I find it curious that not a single factory overclocked variant of the RX 6600 exists, maybe there's some kind of AMD limitation in play here? If you take into account random variation between test runs, the Gigabyte RX 6600 Eagle achieves exactly the same performance result as the PowerColor RX 6600 Fighter in our launch-day review—as expected given the specifications.

The performance numbers in this review confirm the Radeon RX 6600 as a good choice for playing at the highly popular 1080p Full HD resolution. Nearly all titles in our test suite ran at over 60 FPS at maximum settings. Only Cyberpunk 2077 (52 FPS) and Red Dead Redemption 2 (58 FPS) did not, but were close enough. All these benchmarks were with ray tracing disabled. We also expanded our ray tracing test suite with the new bench, and the RX 6600 really can't deliver here. Framerates are pretty much unplayable across the board as the performance hit from enabling ray tracing is between 30–60%. Competing cards from NVIDIA do much better here, often achieving twice (!) the FPS of the RX 6600. I still think this isn't a big deal. With a card like the RX 6600, enabling ray tracing simply isn't worth it considering the graphics improvement ray tracing brings. In some titles, the RT effects come with a small performance penalty, but only a negligible visual difference that is almost impossible to spot, so much so that you'll wonder "that's what I sacrificed X FPS for?". AMD recently introduced their FSR upscaling technology, which works on all cards, including the NVIDIA and RX 6600, of course. While this could be a mechanism to cushion the performance hit from ray tracing, I'm not convinced it's a trade-off I'm willing to recommend for every single game. Still, FSR can be useful for a few extra FPS with minimal loss in image quality.

The Gigabyte Radeon RX 6600 Eagle in this review is the second Radeon RX 6600 card we've tested. The first one was PowerColor's Fighter. Just like the Fighter, the Gigabyte Eagle is clearly designed with cost optimizations in mind. To me it feels like the RX 6600 is the RX 570 of 2021—every dollar counts. What I really like is that Gigabyte included a backplate with their card, even if it's just made from plastic. Actually, the cooling difference between a metal and plastic backplate is almost negligible; it's more about looking more like a complete product, and protecting against damage, of course. The Gigabyte RX 6600 Eagle is also the only triple-fan variant for the RX 6600 XT. Whether there are two or three fans really doesn't make much of a difference here, though. In terms of cooling potential, the card is very similar, only marginally better than the dual-slot PowerColor Fighter as our apples-to-apples heatsink comparison test reveals. Gigabyte prioritized things differently, though. While PowerColor achieved very low noise levels at slightly higher temperature, the Gigabyte Eagle runs a bit cooler, but also louder. With 33 dBA, the card is definitely audible, but clearly not "loud" or "noisy." Considering the incredibly low 65°C, I feel Gigabyte could have allowed slightly higher temperatures, like 70°C, which won't affect longevity or anything else, but achieve better noise levels. It's good to see that idle fan stop has become a mandatory capability nowadays even in this segment—the RX 6600 will shut off its fans in idle, desktop work, and internet browsing.

Considering the simple cooler designs, it's surprising how easy the RX 6600 GPU is to cool. The secret sauce is AMD's extremely high energy efficiency. With just 130 W during gaming, the RX 6600 draws very little power, yet offers sufficient punch for 1080p at highest details. This is one of the most energy-efficient graphics cards I ever tested, considerably more efficient than even NVIDIA's Ampere architecture—who would have thought that just a few years ago. The low power draw of the GPU reduces heat output accordingly, which means the cooler can be smaller and run at slower fan speed to achieve a given target temperature.

While I praised AMD for the increased overclocking limits on the RX 6600 XT, they are back to their old ways with the RX 6600. The slider length in Radeon Settings does not nearly reach far enough to maximize the card's potential. We still achieved a 6.4% real-life performance improvement, which is very decent and will help you get 60 FPS in all titles. OC potential between the Gigabyte Eagle and PowerColor Fighter was nearly identical, no surprises there.

AMD has announced a $329 price point for the RX 6600, which, if you've looked at our Performance per Dollar charts, is clearly unrealistic given current market conditions. At this time, the various Radeon RX 6600 cards sell for around $620, which is A LOT of money for a 1080p card. However, even at that price, it is a much better deal than the GeForce RTX 3060, which currently goes for $700. The RTX 2060 at $550 and RX 6600 XT at $650 can't touch the value of RX 6600, either; if you can even use the word "value." Yes, this market is crazy, but it is what it is. If you are searching for a 1080p card, you might also want to look at older, used cards, as these offer similar performance at similar or better pricing, albeit with worse energy efficiency. While it's certainly nice to have the capability, ray tracing isn't an essential feature to have in this segment, so don't be afraid to think outside the box. Overall, the Radeon RX 6600 is exactly what millions of gamers need—a graphics card that's optimized for gaming at 1080p, paired with low-cost heatsink designs that still achieve good temperatures and noise levels thank to the ultra-high energy efficiency of the graphics chip. All we need now is more supply of these chips.