Radeon RX 6900 XT vs RX 5700 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 5700 XT and Radeon RX 6900 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
6900 XT outperforms 5700 XT by an impressive 66% 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 | 139 | 35 |
| Place by popularity | 50 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 32.27 | 27.31 |
| Power efficiency | 13.26 | 16.52 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 July 2019 (7 years ago) | 28 October 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 5700 XT has 18% better value for money than RX 6900 XT.
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 | 2560 | 5120 |
| Core clock speed | 1605 MHz | 1825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1905 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 304.8 | 720.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.754 TFLOPS | 23.04 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 128 |
| TMUs | 160 | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 1.3 MB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 128 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 272 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 2x 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 type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 512.0 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 HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | + | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Multi Monitor | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
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 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.
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 | 125 | 199
+59.2%
|
| 1440p | 76 | 137
+80.3%
|
| 4K | 47 | 85
+80.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.19
+36.4%
| 5.02 |
| 1440p | 5.25
+28%
| 7.29 |
| 4K | 8.49
+27.8%
| 11.75 |
- RX 5700 XT has 36% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 5700 XT has 28% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 5700 XT has 28% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 175 | 190−200
+13.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 347
+12.7%
|
300−350 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78 | 160−170
+106%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 145 | 190−200
+35.2%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 133 | 190−200
+49.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 119 | 195
+63.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 308 | 300−350 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78 | 160−170
+106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 138 | 190−200
+38.4%
|
| Fortnite | 223 | 300−350
+35.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 155 | 283
+82.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 177
+2.3%
|
170−180 |
| Valorant | 313 | 350−400
+20.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 78 | 190−200
+155%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110 | 196
+78.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 177 | 300−350
+74%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75 | 160−170
+115%
|
| Dota 2 | 92 | 160−170
+83.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130 | 190−200
+46.9%
|
| Fortnite | 179 | 300−350
+68.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 154 | 279
+81.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 145 | 160−170
+16.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 97 | 164
+69.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 166 | 170−180
+4.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 154 | 323
+110%
|
| Valorant | 294 | 350−400
+27.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 105 | 197
+87.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 67 | 160−170
+140%
|
| Dota 2 | 103 | 160−170
+64.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 111 | 190−200
+72.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 148 | 248
+67.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 139 | 170−180
+24.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 93 | 164
+76.3%
|
| Valorant | 159 | 411
+158%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 143 | 300−350
+111%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 105 | 190−200
+86.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 500−550
+84.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79 | 130−140
+74.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57 | 102
+78.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 286 | 450−500
+57.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 89 | 196
+120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40 | 90−95
+130%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 97 | 160−170
+70.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 119 | 231
+94.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75 | 150−160
+111%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 93 | 150−160
+62.4%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35 | 55−60
+90.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 28 | 85−90
+214%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79 | 150−160
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35 | 67
+91.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54 | 122
+126%
|
| Valorant | 242 | 300−350
+31.4%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60 | 134
+123%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 85−90
+95.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17 | 40−45
+159%
|
| Dota 2 | 93 | 150−160
+71%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53 | 100−110
+98.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 79 | 162
+105%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 53 | 95−100
+81.1%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 45 | 75−80
+75.6%
|
This is how RX 5700 XT and RX 6900 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6900 XT is 59% faster in 1080p
- RX 6900 XT is 80% faster in 1440p
- RX 6900 XT is 81% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 5700 XT is 13% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6900 XT is 214% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 5700 XT performs better in 2 tests (3%)
- RX 6900 XT performs better in 57 tests (92%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 38.31 | 63.67 |
| Recency | 7 July 2019 | 28 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 300 Watt |
RX 5700 XT has 25% lower power consumption.
RX 6900 XT, on the other hand, has a 66% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon RX 6900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 5700 XT in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
