Radeon Vega 7 vs Pro W6800X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W6800X with Radeon Vega 7, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6800X outperforms Vega 7 by a whopping 491% 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 | 122 | 608 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 15 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.98 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 15.30 | 11.52 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Navi 21 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 August 2021 (4 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,799 | 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 | 3840 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1800 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2087 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 26,800 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 500.9 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 16.03 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 8 |
| TMUs | 240 | 28 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 60 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 960 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | no data |
| L3 Cache | 128 MB | no data |
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 | Apple MPX | IGP |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | Quad-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | Apple MPX | 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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, 4x Thunderbolt | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2 |
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 | 130−140
+491%
| 22
−491%
|
| 1440p | 160−170
+471%
| 28
−471%
|
| 4K | 100−110
+456%
| 18
−456%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 21.53 | no data |
| 1440p | 17.49 | no data |
| 4K | 27.99 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Valorant | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
This is how Pro W6800X and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Pro W6800X is 491% faster in 1080p
- Pro W6800X is 471% faster in 1440p
- Pro W6800X is 456% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 40.25 | 6.81 |
| Recency | 3 August 2021 | 13 April 2021 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 45 Watt |
Pro W6800X has a 491% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 3 months.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has 344% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W6800X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Vega 7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W6800X is a workstation graphics card while Radeon Vega 7 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.
