Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 6850M XT vs RX 6800
Price now
632$
Games supported
100%
- Interface PCIe 4.0 x16
- Core clock speed 1815
- Max video memory 16 GB
- Memory type GDDR6
- Memory clock speed 16000
- Maximum resolution
- Interface PCIe 4.0 x16
- Core clock speed
- Max video memory 12 GB
- Memory type GDDR6
- Memory clock speed 18000
- Maximum resolution
Price now
no data
Games supported
100%
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance rating | 19 | 36 |
| Value for money | 39.73 | no data |
| Architecture | Navi / RDNA2 (2020−2022) | RDNA 2 (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | Navi 21 | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 November 2020 (2 years old) | 4 January 2022 (1 year old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $579 | no data |
| Current price | $632 (1.1x MSRP) | no data |
Value for money
no data
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3840 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1815 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2105 MHz | 2463 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 26,800 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 250 Watt | 145 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 505.2 | 413.0 |
Dimensions and compatibility
Information on Radeon RX 6800 and Radeon RX 6850M XT compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |
Memory
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 16000 MHz | 18000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 384.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | no data |
API support
APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.2 |
Benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
- Passmark
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
- 3DMark Fire Strike Score
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Passmark
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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.
Benchmark coverage: 24%
Radeon RX 6800 outperforms Radeon RX 6850M XT by 18% in Passmark.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
Radeon RX 6800 outperforms Radeon RX 6850M XT by 31% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Radeon RX 6800 outperforms Radeon RX 6850M XT by 19% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Score
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Radeon RX 6800 outperforms Radeon RX 6850M XT by 37% in 3DMark Fire Strike Score.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Radeon RX 6800 outperforms Radeon RX 6850M XT by 34% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 174
+26.1%
| 138
−26.1%
|
| 1440p | 111
+29.1%
| 86
−29.1%
|
| 4K | 71
+18.3%
| 60
−18.3%
|
Popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 135
−18.5%
|
160
+18.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 85−90
+12.7%
|
75−80
−12.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 205
+28.9%
|
159
−28.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+10%
|
130−140
−10%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 150−160
+15.9%
|
130−140
−15.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 115
−18.3%
|
136
+18.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 197
+80.7%
|
109
−80.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 164
+56.2%
|
100−110
−56.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+13.5%
|
140−150
−13.5%
|
| Hitman 3 | 180−190
−7.2%
|
193
+7.2%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 202
+27%
|
159
−27%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+19.2%
|
75−80
−19.2%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 245
+102%
|
120−130
−102%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 115
−3.5%
|
119
+3.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 85−90
+12.7%
|
75−80
−12.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 172
+32.3%
|
130
−32.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+10%
|
130−140
−10%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 150−160
+15.9%
|
130−140
−15.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 104
−1.9%
|
106
+1.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 186
+77.1%
|
105
−77.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 157
+49.5%
|
100−110
−49.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+13.5%
|
140−150
−13.5%
|
| Hitman 3 | 180−190
−6.7%
|
192
+6.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 168
+26.3%
|
133
−26.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 147
+26.7%
|
116
−26.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+19.2%
|
75−80
−19.2%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 212
+75.2%
|
120−130
−75.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 269
+35.9%
|
198
−35.9%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 104
−3.8%
|
108
+3.8%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 85−90
+12.7%
|
75−80
−12.7%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 162
+44.6%
|
112
−44.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+10%
|
130−140
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 99
+13.8%
|
87
−13.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 174
+70.6%
|
102
−70.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 142
+35.2%
|
100−110
−35.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+13.5%
|
140−150
−13.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 152
+24.6%
|
122
−24.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 88
+6%
|
83
−6%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 100−110
+21.4%
|
80−85
−21.4%
|
| Hitman 3 | 120−130
−13.3%
|
136
+13.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 129
+29%
|
100
−29%
|
| Metro Exodus | 89
+30.9%
|
68
−30.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 50−55
+22%
|
40−45
−22%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 137
+73.4%
|
75−80
−73.4%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 60−65
+17.3%
|
50−55
−17.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 144
+69.4%
|
85
−69.4%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+13.4%
|
95−100
−13.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
+34.5%
|
55
−34.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 163
+64.6%
|
99
−64.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 138
+62.4%
|
85−90
−62.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+20%
|
100−110
−20%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 72
+20%
|
60
−20%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 60−65
+25%
|
45−50
−25%
|
| Hitman 3 | 65−70
+26.9%
|
50−55
−26.9%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70
+84.2%
|
35−40
−84.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+61.8%
|
30−35
−61.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 73
+78%
|
40−45
−78%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 99
+37.5%
|
72
−37.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 40−45
+23.5%
|
30−35
−23.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 99
+111%
|
47
−111%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+18.3%
|
60−65
−18.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+30.8%
|
26
−30.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+33.8%
|
68
−33.8%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 99
+86.8%
|
50−55
−86.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+22.5%
|
70−75
−22.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 45
+73.1%
|
24−27
−73.1%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance rating | 56.34 | 47.69 |
| Recency | 18 November 2020 | 4 January 2022 |
| Memory bus width | 256 | 192 |
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3840 | 2560 |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 | 384 |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 250 Watt | 145 Watt |
Judging by the results of synthetic and gaming tests, Technical City recommends
since it shows better performance.
Be aware that Radeon RX 6800 is a desktop card while Radeon RX 6850M XT is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Competitors of Radeon RX 6800 by NVIDIA
The nearest Radeon RX 6800's NVIDIA equivalent is GeForce RTX 3070, which is faster by 1% and higher by 1 position in our performance rating.
Here are some closest NVIDIA rivals to Radeon RX 6800:
Competitors of Radeon RX 6850M XT by NVIDIA
According to our data, the closest equivalent to Radeon RX 6850M XT by NVIDIA is GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile, which is slower by 5% and lower by 5 positions in our rating.
Here are some closest NVIDIA rivals to Radeon RX 6850M XT:
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
