Tuesday, May 18th 2021

AMD Radeon RX 6600 Series to Feature PCIe 4.0 x8 Interface and up to 8 GB of GDDR6 Memory

German publication, Igor's LAB, has got ahold of some information regarding AMD's upcoming Radeon RX 6600 series graphics card. Based on the Navi 23 SKU, the GPU is supposed to satisfy all the entry-level needs one would expect from a GPU. That means light 1080p gaming and multimedia streaming. For starters, let's get into details of the die. Igor's LAB notes that the die size is 235.76mm2, with a 35x35 mm package. The die will be centered in a package with a 45-degree rotation, which you can see how it looks in the images below. Additionally, the Navi 23 GPU will have SKUs ranging from 65 Watts to 95 Watts of Total Graphics Power (TGP). As far as frequency goes, the card BIOS points to the maximum clock speed of 2350 MHz, which is lower than the rumored 2684 MHz.

When it comes to memory, the upcoming Navi 23 GPUs can be equipped with up to 16 GB of GDDR6 memory, however, it is most likely that the regular gamer version will come with 8 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro models will use the full 16 GB limit. As far as interface is concerned, the Radeon RX 6600 series will be limited to PCIe 4.0 x8 connection, as the low-end GPU doesn't require a full x16 slot. With the bandwidth of the PCIe 4.0, only eight lanes are enough for this GPU. These cards are expected to hit the market sometime in June, and we are waiting for the official announcement.
Source: Igor's LAB
Add your own comment

15 Comments on AMD Radeon RX 6600 Series to Feature PCIe 4.0 x8 Interface and up to 8 GB of GDDR6 Memory

#2
theGryphon
I'm curious to see whether LP cards will emerge from this.
Posted on Reply
#3
ixi
How come "light gaming" on 1080p?

6700 ir for 1440p and 6600 can only barely hold on to 1080p? :D
Posted on Reply
#6
las
Can't wait :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#7
RealKGB
Will it still have a full-length card edge with all the plating, a full-length card edge with only the necessary plating, or will it only have an 8x card edge?

No matter the config we'll still get forum posts:
1. "MY RX 6600 IS ONLY RUNNING AT 8X NOT 16X HOW DO I CHANGE IT?!?!"
2. "MY RX 6600 IS MISSING PINS ON THE PCIE SLOT!!!"
3. "WHY DOES MY RX 6600 ONLY HAVE HALF THE SLOT?!?!"

Yay...
Posted on Reply
#8
theGryphon
RealKGBWill it still have a full-length card edge with all the plating, a full-length card edge with only the necessary plating, or will it only have an 8x card edge?

No matter the config we'll still get forum posts:
1. "MY RX 6600 IS ONLY RUNNING AT 8X NOT 16X HOW DO I CHANGE IT?!?!"
2. "MY RX 6600 IS MISSING PINS ON THE PCIE SLOT!!!"
3. "WHY DOES MY RX 6600 ONLY HAVE HALF THE SLOT?!?!"

Yay...
I think only 8x edge would somewhat reduce the complaints, but retailers may still get some unnecessary returns. :banghead:
Posted on Reply
#9
mechtech
RealKGBWill it still have a full-length card edge with all the plating, a full-length card edge with only the necessary plating, or will it only have an 8x card edge?

No matter the config we'll still get forum posts:
1. "MY RX 6600 IS ONLY RUNNING AT 8X NOT 16X HOW DO I CHANGE IT?!?!"
2. "MY RX 6600 IS MISSING PINS ON THE PCIE SLOT!!!"
3. "WHY DOES MY RX 6600 ONLY HAVE HALF THE SLOT?!?!"

Yay...
No bad products................only bad prices....................

Looking forward on how it's going to compare to the old $230 RX480 8GB
Posted on Reply
#10
nienorgt
8x PCI-E 4.0 is basically the same bandwidth as 16x PCI-E 3.0, is there any advantages of using higher PCI-E revision just to use the same bandwidth as the previous revision or it's just marketing stuff?
I mean, that's the first time that a new card use a x8 lanes by design and I don't see any advantages since it will be put in a x16 slot anyway unlike the low end cards that can use the x1 and x4 slots.
Posted on Reply
#11
Operandi
Is that PCIe 8x going to be a limitation for people with older PCIe 2.0 systems looking to upgrade? I imagine thats a pretty big target market for cards like this.
Posted on Reply
#12
theGryphon
8x 3.0 should be fine for this GPU, but 2.0 would be a bottleneck.
Posted on Reply
#13
TheinsanegamerN
theGryphon8x 3.0 should be fine for this GPU, but 2.0 would be a bottleneck.
OperandiIs that PCIe 8x going to be a limitation for people with older PCIe 2.0 systems looking to upgrade? I imagine thats a pretty big target market for cards like this.
2.0x8 (3.0x4) only bottlenecks a 2080ti by 8% VS 3.0x16. A GPU like a 6600xt should be just fine

www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-pci-express-scaling/6.html
theGryphonI'm curious to see whether LP cards will emerge from this.
Likely not, although a navi 23 die cut down to 1280 cores may fit in a 75 watt TDP for a LP card. That would be a nice upgrade from the RX 560.
nienorgt8x PCI-E 4.0 is basically the same bandwidth as 16x PCI-E 3.0, is there any advantages of using higher PCI-E revision just to use the same bandwidth as the previous revision or it's just marketing stuff?
I mean, that's the first time that a new card use a x8 lanes by design and I don't see any advantages since it will be put in a x16 slot anyway unlike the low end cards that can use the x1 and x4 slots.
When AMD designs these GPUs, they usually design them with only one type of PCIe controller in mind. rDNA2 is built on a PCIe 4.0 controller, so integrating a 3.0 controller for a 3.0x16 bus would be far more expensive then just limiting the card to a x8 4.0 connection. It's also not the first, the RX 5500 xt did the same thing, and mid range mobile GPUs have used this design for years now.
Posted on Reply
#15
nienorgt
TheinsanegamerNWhen AMD designs these GPUs, they usually design them with only one type of PCIe controller in mind. rDNA2 is built on a PCIe 4.0 controller, so integrating a 3.0 controller for a 3.0x16 bus would be far more expensive then just limiting the card to a x8 4.0 connection. It's also not the first, the RX 5500 xt did the same thing, and mid range mobile GPUs have used this design for years now.
Oh, right, the controller...
OK let me facepalm myself for forgetting that PCI-E cards use a PCI-E controller xD
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment