Radeon Pro W6800X vs R4 (Stoney Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) with Radeon Pro W6800X, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6800X outperforms R4 (Stoney Ridge) by a whopping 3369% 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 | 1122 | 142 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 6.46 |
| Power efficiency | 5.43 | 14.14 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Stoney Ridge | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (9 years ago) | 3 August 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 192 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 600 MHz | 2087 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 200 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 500.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 16.03 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 96 |
| TMUs | no data | 240 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 60 |
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 | no data | Apple MPX |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | Quad-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | 1x HDMI 2.1, 4x Thunderbolt |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
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 | 9
−3233%
| 300−350
+3233%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 9.33 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3329%
|
240−250
+3329%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−3233%
|
300−310
+3233%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3338%
|
1100−1150
+3338%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−3362%
|
900−950
+3362%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−3233%
|
500−550
+3233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3329%
|
240−250
+3329%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−3233%
|
300−310
+3233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−3233%
|
200−210
+3233%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3338%
|
1100−1150
+3338%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−3233%
|
500−550
+3233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−3329%
|
240−250
+3329%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−3233%
|
300−310
+3233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−3233%
|
200−210
+3233%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3338%
|
1100−1150
+3338%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−3233%
|
200−210
+3233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−3082%
|
350−400
+3082%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−3233%
|
500−550
+3233%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−3233%
|
200−210
+3233%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
This is how R4 (Stoney Ridge) and Pro W6800X compete in popular games:
- Pro W6800X is 3233% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.07 | 37.12 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 3 August 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 200 Watt |
R4 (Stoney Ridge) has 1233.3% lower power consumption.
Pro W6800X, on the other hand, has a 3369.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W6800X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) is a notebook 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.
