Radeon PRO W7800 vs RX 6950 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 6950 XT with Radeon PRO W7800, including specs and performance data.
6950 XT outperforms PRO W7800 by a minimal 4% 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 | 24 | 31 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 31.80 | 13.24 |
| Power efficiency | 15.59 | 19.33 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | RDNA 3 (2023−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 21 | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 10 May 2022 (4 years ago) | 26 May 2023 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,099 | $2,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 6950 XT has 140% better value for money than PRO W7800.
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 | 5120 | 4480 |
| Core clock speed | 1925 MHz | 1895 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2324 MHz | 2525 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 26,800 million | 57.7 billion |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 335 Watt | 260 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 743.7 | 707.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 23.8 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 128 | 128 |
| TMUs | 320 | 280 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 80 | 70 |
| L0 Cache | 1.3 MB | 2.2 MB |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 6 MB |
| L3 Cache | 128 MB | 64 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 | 267 mm | 280 mm |
| Width | 3-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | 16 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 576.0 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 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | + | - |
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 | 6.5 | 6.9 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |
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.
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 | 218
+9%
| 200−210 |
| 1440p | 133
+10.8%
| 120−130 |
| 4K | 84
+5%
| 80−85 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.04
+59.7%
| 12.50 |
| 1440p | 8.26
+60.3%
| 20.83 |
| 4K | 13.08
+58.1%
| 31.24 |
- RX 6950 XT has 60% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 6950 XT has 60% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 6950 XT has 58% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 347
+15.7%
|
300−310 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 351
+17%
|
300−310 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 161
+7.3%
|
150−160 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 349
+16.3%
|
300−310 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 257
+7.1%
|
240−250 |
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180
+5.3%
|
170−180 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 339
+13%
|
300−310 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 143
+10%
|
130−140 |
| Far Cry 5 | 181
+6.5%
|
170−180 |
| Fortnite | 300−350
+4.1%
|
290−300 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280
+8%
|
250−260 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+8.1%
|
160−170 |
| Valorant | 400−450
+15.1%
|
350−400 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 159
+6%
|
150−160 |
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180
+5.3%
|
170−180 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 318
+6%
|
300−310 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+6.9%
|
260−270 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 128
+6.7%
|
120−130 |
| Dota 2 | 199
+4.7%
|
190−200 |
| Far Cry 5 | 173
+8.1%
|
160−170 |
| Fortnite | 300−350
+4.1%
|
290−300 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280
+8%
|
250−260 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 172
+7.5%
|
160−170 |
| Metro Exodus | 189
+5%
|
180−190 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+8.1%
|
160−170 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 376
+7.4%
|
350−400 |
| Valorant | 400−450
+15.1%
|
350−400 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180
+5.3%
|
170−180 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 122
+10.9%
|
110−120 |
| Dota 2 | 167
+4.4%
|
160−170 |
| Far Cry 5 | 164
+9.3%
|
150−160 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280
+8%
|
250−260 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+8.1%
|
160−170 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 216
+8%
|
200−210 |
| Valorant | 400−450
+15.1%
|
350−400 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 300−350
+4.1%
|
290−300 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 236
+7.3%
|
220−230 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550
+14.7%
|
450−500 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 153
+9.3%
|
140−150 |
| Metro Exodus | 120
+9.1%
|
110−120 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+9.4%
|
160−170 |
| Valorant | 450−500
+7.8%
|
450−500 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180
+8.8%
|
160−170 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 93
+9.4%
|
85−90 |
| Far Cry 5 | 163
+8.7%
|
150−160 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 230−240
+6.4%
|
220−230 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 160−170
+5.6%
|
160−170 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+7.9%
|
140−150 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 60−65
+6.7%
|
60−65 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 58
+5.5%
|
55−60 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 174
+8.8%
|
160−170 |
| Metro Exodus | 77
+10%
|
70−75 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 144
+10.8%
|
130−140 |
| Valorant | 300−350
+6%
|
300−310 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+6.7%
|
120−130 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+5.6%
|
90−95 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46
+15%
|
40−45 |
| Dota 2 | 141
+8.5%
|
130−140 |
| Far Cry 5 | 124
+12.7%
|
110−120 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+4.4%
|
180−190 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+6.7%
|
90−95 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+5.3%
|
75−80 |
This is how RX 6950 XT and PRO W7800 compete in popular games:
- RX 6950 XT is 9% faster in 1080p
- RX 6950 XT is 11% faster in 1440p
- RX 6950 XT is 5% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 67.08 | 64.53 |
| Recency | 10 May 2022 | 26 May 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 335 Watt | 260 Watt |
RX 6950 XT has a 4% higher aggregate performance score.
PRO W7800, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 29% more advanced lithography process, and 22% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 6950 XT and Radeon PRO W7800.
Be aware that Radeon RX 6950 XT is a desktop graphics card while Radeon PRO W7800 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
