Radeon RX 6700 XT vs FirePro V7900

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro V7900 with Radeon RX 6700 XT, including specs and performance data.

FirePro V7900
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 151 Watt
5.40
RX 6700 XT
2021, $479
12 GB GDDR6, 230 Watt
47.13
+773%

6700 XT outperforms V7900 by a whopping 773% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking67779
Place by popularitynot in top-10069
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data44.21
Power efficiency2.8015.95
ArchitectureTeraScale 3 (2010−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameCaymanNavi 22
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date24 May 2011 (15 years ago)3 March 2021 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$479

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores12802560
Core clock speed725 MHz2321 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2581 MHz
Number of transistors2,640 million17,200 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)151 Watt230 Watt
Texture fill rate58.00413.0
Floating-point processing power1.856 TFLOPS13.21 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs80160
Ray Tracing Coresno data40
L0 Cacheno data640 KB
L1 Cache320 KB512 KB
L2 Cache512 KB3 MB
L3 Cacheno data96 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus supportPCIe 2.1 x16no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length279 mm267 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Form factorfull height / full lengthno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB12 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth160 GB/s384.0 GB/s
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors4x DisplayPort1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI-+
StereoOutput3D+-
DisplayPort count4no data
Dual-link DVI support+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.5
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.22.1
VulkanN/A1.2

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

FirePro V7900 5.40
RX 6700 XT 47.13
+773%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

FirePro V7900 2260
Samples: 80
RX 6700 XT 19716
+772%
Samples: 14808

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD16−18
−88.8%
143
1440p8−9
−89.6%
77
4K5−6
−88.9%
45

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.35
1440pno data6.22
4Kno data10.64

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 232 232
Counter-Strike 2 349 349
Cyberpunk 2077 119 119
Resident Evil 4 Remake 257 257

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 169 169
Battlefield 5 140−150 140−150
Counter-Strike 2 347 347
Cyberpunk 2077 99 99
Far Cry 5 178 178
Fortnite 200−210 200−210
Forza Horizon 4 180−190 180−190
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 270−280 270−280

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 101 101
Battlefield 5 140−150 140−150
Counter-Strike 2 206 206
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 90 90
Dota 2 175 175
Far Cry 5 169 169
Fortnite 200−210 200−210
Forza Horizon 4 180−190 180−190
Grand Theft Auto V 161 161
Metro Exodus 119 119
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 223 223
Valorant 270−280 270−280

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 140−150 140−150
Cyberpunk 2077 85 85
Dota 2 139 139
Far Cry 5 159 159
Forza Horizon 4 180−190 180−190
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 127 127
Valorant 270−280 270−280

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 200−210 200−210

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 126 126
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 300−350 300−350
Grand Theft Auto V 102 102
Metro Exodus 71 71
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 300−350 300−350

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120 110−120
Cyberpunk 2077 56 56
Far Cry 5 137 137
Forza Horizon 4 140−150 140−150
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−105 100−105

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 130−140 130−140

4K
High

Atomic Heart 40−45 40−45
Counter-Strike 2 32 32
Grand Theft Auto V 102 102
Metro Exodus 43 43
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 74 74
Valorant 280−290 280−290

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 75−80 75−80
Counter-Strike 2 55−60 55−60
Cyberpunk 2077 25 25
Dota 2 106 106
Far Cry 5 71 71
Forza Horizon 4 95−100 95−100
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80 75−80

4K
Epic

Fortnite 65−70 65−70

This is how FirePro V7900 and RX 6700 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6700 XT is 794% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6700 XT is 863% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6700 XT is 800% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.40 47.13
Recency 24 May 2011 3 March 2021
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 12 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 151 Watt 230 Watt

FirePro V7900 has 34% lower power consumption.

RX 6700 XT, on the other hand, has a 773% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 83% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro V7900 in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro V7900 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6700 XT is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 20 votes

Rate FirePro V7900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 8719 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6700 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro V7900 or Radeon RX 6700 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.