Radeon Pro W6800X vs VII
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon VII with Radeon Pro W6800X, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6800X outperforms VII by a minimal 3% 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 | 134 | 124 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 17.35 | 6.70 |
| Power efficiency | 10.21 | 15.47 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Vega 20 | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 February 2019 (7 years ago) | 3 August 2021 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $2,799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Radeon VII has 159% better value for money than Pro W6800X.
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 | 3840 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | 1400 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2087 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 13,230 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 200 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 420.0 | 500.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 13.44 TFLOPS | 16.03 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 96 |
| TMUs | 240 | 240 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 60 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 960 KB |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | 768 KB |
| 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 3.0 x16 | Apple MPX |
| Length | 280 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | Quad-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | Apple MPX |
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 | HBM2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 1024 GB/s | 512.0 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 Connectors | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x HDMI 2.1, 4x Thunderbolt |
| HDMI | + | + |
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 | 6.7 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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.
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 | 121
+0.8%
| 120−130 |
| 1440p | 75 | 75−80
+0%
|
| 4K | 58
+5.5%
| 55−60 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.78
+75.2%
| 23.33 |
| 1440p | 9.32
+75%
| 37.32 |
| 4K | 12.05
+76.3%
| 50.89 |
- Radeon VII has 75% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- Radeon VII has 75% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- Radeon VII has 76% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 120−130
+1.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 220−230
+1.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+1.1%
|
90−95 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 120−130
+1.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 136
+4.6%
|
130−140 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 220−230
+1.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+1.1%
|
90−95 |
| Far Cry 5 | 99 | 100−105
+1%
|
| Fortnite | 195 | 200−210
+2.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 163
+1.9%
|
160−170 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 157 | 160−170
+1.9%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+1.3%
|
230−240 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 120−130
+1.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 137 | 140−150
+2.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 220−230
+1.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 280−290
+0.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+1.1%
|
90−95 |
| Dota 2 | 160 | 160−170 |
| Far Cry 5 | 95 | 95−100 |
| Far Cry 6 | 110−120
+3.6%
|
110−120 |
| Fortnite | 154
+2.7%
|
150−160 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 157 | 160−170
+1.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 111
+0.9%
|
110−120 |
| Metro Exodus | 88 | 90−95
+2.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 158 | 160−170
+1.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 139 | 140−150
+0.7%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+1.3%
|
230−240 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 127 | 130−140
+2.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+1.1%
|
90−95 |
| Dota 2 | 147 | 150−160
+2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+1.1%
|
90−95 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130 | 130−140 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 143
+2.1%
|
140−150 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75 | 75−80 |
| Valorant | 197 | 200−210
+1.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 114
+3.6%
|
110−120 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−105 | 100−105 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 280−290
+1.8%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 70−75 | 75−80
+1.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 43
+7.5%
|
40−45 |
| Metro Exodus | 56
+1.8%
|
55−60 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2.9%
|
170−180 |
| Valorant | 260−270 | 270−280
+1.1%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−105 | 100−105 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50 |
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+1.1%
|
95−100 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+1.8%
|
110−120 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80 | 75−80 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+4%
|
100−105 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50 |
| Far Cry 6 | 30−35
+6.7%
|
30−33 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+3.3%
|
60−65 |
| Metro Exodus | 37
+5.7%
|
35−40 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54 | 55−60
+1.9%
|
| Valorant | 240−250 | 240−250 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 73
+4.3%
|
70−75 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+2.2%
|
45−50 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Dota 2 | 78 | 80−85
+2.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59 | 60−65
+1.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+2.7%
|
75−80 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 58
+5.5%
|
55−60 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 44 | 45−50
+2.3%
|
This is how Radeon VII and Pro W6800X compete in popular games:
- Radeon VII is 1% faster in 1080p
- A tie in 1440p
- Radeon VII is 5% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 38.67 | 39.72 |
| Recency | 7 February 2019 | 3 August 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 32 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 295 Watt | 200 Watt |
Pro W6800X has a 3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 32% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon VII and Radeon Pro W6800X.
Be aware that Radeon VII is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro W6800X 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.
