RTX 4000 Ada Generation vs Radeon RX 6700 XT

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 6700 XT with RTX 4000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.

RX 6700 XT
2021, $479
12 GB GDDR6, 230 Watt
47.32
RTX 4000 Ada Generation
2023
20 GB GDDR6, 130 Watt
56.73
+19.9%

RTX 4000 Ada Generation outperforms 6700 XT by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking7949
Place by popularity68not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation44.25no data
Power efficiency15.9433.81
ArchitectureRDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameNavi 22AD104
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date3 March 2021 (5 years ago)9 August 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$479 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores25606144
Core clock speed2321 MHz1500 MHz
Boost clock speed2581 MHz2175 MHz
Number of transistors17,200 million35,800 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)230 Watt130 Watt
Texture fill rate413.0417.6
Floating-point processing power13.21 TFLOPS26.73 TFLOPS
ROPs6464
TMUs160192
Tensor Coresno data192
Ray Tracing Cores4048
L0 Cache640 KBno data
L1 Cache512 KB6 MB
L2 Cache3 MB48 MB
L3 Cache96 MBno 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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length267 mm245 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin1x 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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount12 GB20 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit160 Bit
Memory clock speed2000 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth384.0 GB/s360.0 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort4x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.13.0
Vulkan1.21.3
CUDA-8.9
DLSS-+

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.

RX 6700 XT 47.32
RTX 4000 Ada Generation 56.73
+19.9%

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.

RX 6700 XT 19715
Samples: 14781
RTX 4000 Ada Generation 23635
+19.9%
Samples: 1142

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 HD143170−180
+18.9%
1440p7790−95
+16.9%
4K4550−55
+11.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.35no data
1440p6.22no data
4K10.64no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 232 270−280
+16.4%
Counter-Strike 2 349 400−450
+14.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 119 140−150
+17.6%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 257 300−310
+16.7%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 169 200−210
+18.3%
Battlefield 5 140−150 170−180
+14.1%
Counter-Strike 2 347 400−450
+15.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 99 110−120
+11.1%
Far Cry 5 178 210−220
+18%
Fortnite 200−210 240−250
+17.1%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190 210−220
+14.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 200−210
+17%
Valorant 270−280 300−310
+9.5%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 101 120−130
+18.8%
Battlefield 5 140−150 170−180
+14.1%
Counter-Strike 2 206 240−250
+16.5%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 300−310
+7.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 90 100−105
+11.1%
Dota 2 175 200−210
+14.3%
Far Cry 5 169 200−210
+18.3%
Fortnite 200−210 240−250
+17.1%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190 210−220
+14.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 161 190−200
+18%
Metro Exodus 119 140−150
+17.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 200−210
+17%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 223 260−270
+16.6%
Valorant 270−280 300−310
+9.5%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 140−150 170−180
+14.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 85 100−105
+17.6%
Dota 2 139 160−170
+15.1%
Far Cry 5 159 190−200
+19.5%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190 210−220
+14.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 200−210
+17%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 127 150−160
+18.1%
Valorant 270−280 300−310
+9.5%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 200−210 240−250
+17.1%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 126 150−160
+19%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 300−350 400−450
+17%
Grand Theft Auto V 102 120−130
+17.6%
Metro Exodus 71 85−90
+19.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 200−210
+14.3%
Valorant 300−350 350−400
+11.8%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120 140−150
+18.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 56 65−70
+16.1%
Far Cry 5 137 160−170
+16.8%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150 170−180
+18.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−105 110−120
+10%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 130−140 150−160
+14.5%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 40−45 45−50
+12.5%
Counter-Strike 2 32 35−40
+9.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 102 120−130
+17.6%
Metro Exodus 43 50−55
+16.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 74 85−90
+14.9%
Valorant 280−290 300−310
+4.5%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 75−80 90−95
+15.4%
Counter-Strike 2 55−60 70−75
+18.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 25 27−30
+8%
Dota 2 106 120−130
+13.2%
Far Cry 5 71 85−90
+19.7%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100 110−120
+11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80 85−90
+13.3%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 65−70 80−85
+17.6%

This is how RX 6700 XT and RTX 4000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:

  • RTX 4000 Ada Generation is 19% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 4000 Ada Generation is 17% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 4000 Ada Generation is 11% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 47.32 56.73
Recency 3 March 2021 9 August 2023
Maximum RAM amount 12 GB 20 GB
Chip lithography 7 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 230 Watt 130 Watt

RTX 4000 Ada Generation has a 20% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 67% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 29% more advanced lithography process, and 43% lower power consumption.

The RTX 4000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 6700 XT in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 6700 XT is a desktop graphics card while RTX 4000 Ada Generation 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.4 8719 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6700 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 69 votes

Rate RTX 4000 Ada Generation on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 6700 XT or RTX 4000 Ada Generation, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.