6600 is faster than 3050

Originally posted by 󠀡󠀡󠀡󠀡⁧⁧Kei:

6600 is faster than 3050

but dlss..

6600 is better, and amd did add hardware encoding to them, so much better choice

but look for the 6600xt or 6650xt if you can

6600 for sure
less power consumption
way faster
RT at this level doesn't matter
FSR kinda crappy, but you can use XeSS almost everywhere instead of FSR

I'd not buy either now, save up a bit more or buy second hand.

The 6600 is a bit faster at raster, the 3050 can do raytracing and has dlss which looks better than fsr.

The 5050 is due soon'ish also and should be about the same price but have frame gen x4 also.

Not sure how the streaming tools, are fir AMD, but nvidias are very good, so could be of use for streaming so worth considering also.

RTX 3050

For gaming, the 6600 Is considerably faster than the 3050
But for streaming NVIDIA has the better encoder which will be better for you due to stream quality.

I feel like neither of them is a good choice and I would wait to see what the 5050 will bring for your budget but out of the two. the RX 6600 in general is better

Originally posted by Monk:

The 6600 is a bit faster at raster, the 3050 can do raytracing

The 6600 also has RT cores for games that require it. It handles Indiana Jones steady 60 on low settings, but the thing about that game, low settings actually look really great.

the intel hd can do rt, its just extremely slow at it

Originally posted by ᶻ𝗓𐰁:

Originally posted by Monk:

The 6600 is a bit faster at raster, the 3050 can do raytracing

The 6600 also has RT cores for games that require it. It handles Indiana Jones steady 60 on low settings, but the thing about that game, low settings actually look really great.

No the rx 6600 does not have any dedicated raytracing hardware, the 9070/xt were the first And cards to get any, what it has is terrible raytracing performance using a software dolouyion yo try and brute force it.

As I said, the 6600 is faster at raster, but worse with raytracing.

Neither the 3050 or 6600 shoukd be bought now, get a newer card (5050 is due soon) or do the sensible thing and buy second hand.

Originally posted by NEO:

Originally posted by 󠀡󠀡󠀡󠀡⁧⁧Kei:

6600 is faster than 3050

but dlss..

DLSS is fantastic and a very good argument for Nvidia but according to TechPowerUp the 6600 is 44% faster.
That’s big enough of a difference to run games faster at native resolution vs much slower 3050 with DLSS. And DLSS3 at 1080p may look like a vaseline on monitor making everything blurry.
I would say that 6600 is a better deal if both cards cost the same but neither of them are a good buy right now in my opinion.

Check benchmarks on YT in games you want to play for comparison but also remember that running OBS at the same time costs some performance.

Originally posted by NEO:

Originally posted by 󠀡󠀡󠀡󠀡⁧⁧Kei:

6600 is faster than 3050

but dlss..

Which means nothing. Only clowns think you should grab a straight up worse card for DLSS.

Seriously, not every game has scalers a people should be buying what gives them the best gaming for their dollar.

Originally posted by Monk:

Originally posted by ᶻ𝗓𐰁:

The 6600 also has RT cores for games that require it. It handles Indiana Jones steady 60 on low settings, but the thing about that game, low settings actually look really great.

No the rx 6600 does not have any dedicated raytracing hardware, the 9070/xt were the first And cards to get any, what it has is terrible raytracing performance using a software dolouyion yo try and brute force it.

As I said, the 6600 is faster at raster, but worse with raytracing.

Neither the 3050 or 6600 shoukd be bought now, get a newer card (5050 is due soon) or do the sensible thing and buy second hand.

My point is they are both rt capable but they aren't cards you would use rt with. Also I think it's funny you get mad at me and give me jesters just for sharing my opinions. Yesterday you got mad at me for recommending someone one use a good PSU because it costs $20 more but today you're screaming at people for using 'ouf of date cards' and putting them down for not buying expensive upgrades.

Originally posted by C1REX:

Originally posted by NEO:

but dlss..

DLSS is fantastic and a very good argument for Nvidia but according to TechPowerUp the 6600 is 44% faster.
That’s big enough of a difference to run games faster at native resolution vs much slower 3050 with DLSS. And DLSS3 at 1080p may look like a vaseline on monitor making everything blurry.
I would say that 6600 is a better deal if both cards cost the same but neither of them are a good buy right now in my opinion.

Check benchmarks on YT in games you want to play for comparison but also remember that running OBS at the same time costs some performance.

yeah rx 6600 is better in ths price. theres no point of using ray tracing in rtx 3050 either