Radeon RX 6700S vs GeForce RTX 2060 Super
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 2060 Super with Radeon RX 6700S, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2060 Super outperforms 6700S by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 128 | 158 |
| Place by popularity | 16 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 33.92 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 17.50 | 34.83 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | TU106 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 9 July 2019 (7 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 2176 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1470 MHz | 1700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1650 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,800 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 224.4 | 224.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.181 TFLOPS | 7.168 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 136 | 112 |
| Tensor Cores | 272 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 34 | 28 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 448 KB |
| L1 Cache | 2.1 MB | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 32 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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
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 type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 HD | 111 | 115
+3.6%
|
| 1440p | 64
+1.6%
| 63 |
| 4K | 43
+22.9%
| 35−40 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.59 | no data |
| 1440p | 6.23 | no data |
| 4K | 9.28 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 168
+55.6%
|
100−110 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 320
+58.4%
|
200−210 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 88
+4.8%
|
80−85 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 118
+22.9%
|
95−100 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 124
+14.8%
|
100−110 |
| Battlefield 5 | 117 | 120−130
+8.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 285
+41.1%
|
200−210 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 79 | 99
+25.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 135
+22.7%
|
110 |
| Fortnite | 266
+67.3%
|
150−160 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 152
+8.6%
|
140−150 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 147
+1.4%
|
140−150 |
| Valorant | 298
+35.5%
|
220−230 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 73 | 100−110
+47.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 101 | 120−130
+25.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 175 | 200−210
+15.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71 | 74
+4.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 200
+73.9%
|
115 |
| Far Cry 5 | 126
+22.3%
|
103 |
| Fortnite | 175
+10.1%
|
150−160 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147
+5%
|
140−150 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 139
+17.8%
|
118 |
| Metro Exodus | 81 | 85−90
+6.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 143 | 140−150
+1.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 163
+13.2%
|
144 |
| Valorant | 293
+33.2%
|
220−230 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 93 | 120−130
+36.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 62
+3.3%
|
60 |
| Dota 2 | 185
+79.6%
|
103 |
| Far Cry 5 | 118
+21.6%
|
97 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120 | 140−150
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 123 | 140−150
+17.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85
+1.2%
|
84 |
| Valorant | 180 | 190
+5.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 148 | 150−160
+7.4%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 99
+10%
|
90−95 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 280−290
+10.2%
|
250−260 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+14.7%
|
75−80 |
| Metro Exodus | 49 | 50−55
+6.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 268
+5.9%
|
250−260 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 74 | 90−95
+27%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+29%
|
31 |
| Far Cry 5 | 88
+11.4%
|
79 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 98 | 100−110
+4.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+13.2%
|
65−70 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 98
+3.2%
|
95−100 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+10.3%
|
27−30 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 23 | 40−45
+82.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 83
+6.4%
|
75−80 |
| Metro Exodus | 31 | 30−35
+6.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 59
+3.5%
|
55−60 |
| Valorant | 210 | 220−230
+5.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 48 | 55−60
+20.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+11.9%
|
40−45 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19 | 18−20 |
| Dota 2 | 121
+14.2%
|
100−110 |
| Far Cry 5 | 46 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 67 | 65−70
+1.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
+4.3%
|
45−50 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 48
+4.3%
|
45−50 |
This is how RTX 2060 Super and RX 6700S compete in popular games:
- RX 6700S is 4% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2060 Super is 2% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2060 Super is 23% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 2060 Super is 80% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6700S is 83% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 2060 Super performs better in 37 tests (60%)
- RX 6700S performs better in 22 tests (35%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.34 | 35.78 |
| Recency | 9 July 2019 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 80 Watt |
RTX 2060 Super has a 10% higher aggregate performance score.
RX 6700S, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 42% more advanced lithography process, and 54% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce RTX 2060 Super and Radeon RX 6700S.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 2060 Super is a desktop graphics card while Radeon RX 6700S is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
