GeForce RTX 5070 Ti vs Radeon Pro W6800
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W6800 with GeForce RTX 5070 Ti, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5070 Ti outperforms Pro W6800 by an impressive 63% 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 | 58 | 7 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 28.72 | 54.74 |
| Power efficiency | 14.17 | 19.22 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 21 | GB203 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 8 June 2021 (3 years ago) | 20 February 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,249 | $749 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 5070 Ti has 91% better value for money than Pro W6800.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3840 | 8960 |
| Core clock speed | 2075 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2320 MHz | 2452 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 26,800 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 556.8 | 686.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 17.82 TFLOPS | 43.94 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 96 |
| TMUs | 240 | 280 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 280 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 60 | 70 |
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 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 304 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 16-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 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 896.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 6x mini-DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
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 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 10.1 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 | 137
−10.9%
| 152
+10.9%
|
| 1440p | 116
+0%
| 116
+0%
|
| 4K | 84
+1.2%
| 83
−1.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 16.42
−233%
| 4.93
+233%
|
| 1440p | 19.39
−200%
| 6.46
+200%
|
| 4K | 26.77
−197%
| 9.02
+197%
|
- RTX 5070 Ti has 233% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 5070 Ti has 200% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 5070 Ti has 197% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
−26.8%
|
300−350
+26.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
−73.9%
|
200−210
+73.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 110−120
−44.2%
|
160−170
+44.2%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
−31.5%
|
190−200
+31.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
−26.8%
|
300−350
+26.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
−73.9%
|
200−210
+73.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70
−180%
|
190−200
+180%
|
| Fortnite | 200−210
−46.6%
|
300−350
+46.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
−76.6%
|
300−350
+76.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
−51.7%
|
220−230
+51.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 110−120
−44.2%
|
160−170
+44.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−2.3%
|
170−180
+2.3%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
−84.6%
|
450−500
+84.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
−31.5%
|
190−200
+31.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
−26.8%
|
300−350
+26.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
−73.9%
|
200−210
+73.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 99
−61.6%
|
160−170
+61.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
−202%
|
190−200
+202%
|
| Fortnite | 200−210
−46.6%
|
300−350
+46.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
−76.6%
|
300−350
+76.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
−51.7%
|
220−230
+51.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 121
−43.8%
|
170−180
+43.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 110−120
−44.2%
|
160−170
+44.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 160
−24.4%
|
190−200
+24.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−2.3%
|
170−180
+2.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 199
−73.4%
|
300−350
+73.4%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
−84.6%
|
450−500
+84.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
−31.5%
|
190−200
+31.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
−73.9%
|
200−210
+73.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
−51.2%
|
130−140
+51.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 62
−216%
|
190−200
+216%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
−76.6%
|
300−350
+76.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 110−120
−44.2%
|
160−170
+44.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−2.3%
|
170−180
+2.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 157
−52.9%
|
240
+52.9%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
−84.6%
|
450−500
+84.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 200−210
−46.6%
|
300−350
+46.6%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
−90.2%
|
250−260
+90.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
−53.1%
|
500−550
+53.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 88
−79.5%
|
150−160
+79.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 171
+18.8%
|
140−150
−18.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
−63.9%
|
450−500
+63.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
−66.1%
|
190−200
+66.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
−100%
|
120−130
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
−186%
|
180−190
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
−99.3%
|
290−300
+99.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 55−60
−89.7%
|
110−120
+89.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95−100
−105%
|
199
+105%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 130−140
−14.4%
|
150−160
+14.4%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−91.7%
|
110−120
+91.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 125
−47.2%
|
180−190
+47.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
−113%
|
65−70
+113%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
−81.8%
|
100−105
+81.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 99
−84.8%
|
183
+84.8%
|
| Valorant | 280−290
−16.9%
|
300−350
+16.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−72.2%
|
130−140
+72.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−91.7%
|
110−120
+91.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−114%
|
60−65
+114%
|
| Dota 2 | 94
−59.6%
|
150−160
+59.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
−123%
|
130−140
+123%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−105
−161%
|
260−270
+161%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
−113%
|
65−70
+113%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−26.3%
|
95−100
+26.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
−16.2%
|
75−80
+16.2%
|
This is how Pro W6800 and RTX 5070 Ti compete in popular games:
- RTX 5070 Ti is 11% faster in 1080p
- A tie in 1440p
- Pro W6800 is 1% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro W6800 is 19% faster.
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 5070 Ti is 216% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro W6800 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- RTX 5070 Ti is ahead in 60 tests (95%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 44.65 | 72.66 |
| Recency | 8 June 2021 | 20 February 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 300 Watt |
Pro W6800 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 20% lower power consumption.
RTX 5070 Ti, on the other hand, has a 62.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5070 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro W6800 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W6800 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 5070 Ti 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.
