RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell vs Radeon RX 6900 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 6900 XT with RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, including specs and performance data.
RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell outperforms RX 6900 XT by a significant 20% 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 | 35 | 10 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 30.97 | 2.21 |
| Power efficiency | 16.22 | 9.69 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 21 | GB202 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 28 October 2020 (4 years ago) | 18 March 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $8,565 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 6900 XT has 1301% better value for money than RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell.
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 | 5120 | 24064 |
| Core clock speed | 1825 MHz | 1590 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2250 MHz | 2617 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 26,800 million | 92,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 600 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 720.0 | 1,968 |
| Floating-point processing power | 23.04 TFLOPS | 126 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 128 | 192 |
| TMUs | 320 | 752 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 752 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 80 | 188 |
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 | 3-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | 16 GB | 96 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 1.79 TB/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 | 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 4x 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 | - | 12.0 |
| 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 | 196
−17.3%
| 230−240
+17.3%
|
| 1440p | 134
−19.4%
| 160−170
+19.4%
|
| 4K | 83
−14.5%
| 95−100
+14.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.10
+631%
| 37.24
−631%
|
| 1440p | 7.46
+618%
| 53.53
−618%
|
| 4K | 12.04
+649%
| 90.16
−649%
|
- RX 6900 XT has 631% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 6900 XT has 618% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 6900 XT has 649% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
−14%
|
350−400
+14%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 160−170
−17.3%
|
190−200
+17.3%
|
| God of War | 170−180
−14.3%
|
200−210
+14.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 195
−17.9%
|
230−240
+17.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
−14%
|
350−400
+14%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 160−170
−17.3%
|
190−200
+17.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 190−200
−14.6%
|
220−230
+14.6%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
−15.9%
|
350−400
+15.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 283
−6%
|
300−310
+6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 190−200
−14.6%
|
220−230
+14.6%
|
| God of War | 170−180
−14.3%
|
200−210
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−14.3%
|
200−210
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
−10.2%
|
400−450
+10.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 196
−17.3%
|
230−240
+17.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
−14%
|
350−400
+14%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
−7.9%
|
300−310
+7.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 160−170
−17.3%
|
190−200
+17.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 170−180
−17.6%
|
200−210
+17.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 190−200
−14.6%
|
220−230
+14.6%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
−15.9%
|
350−400
+15.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 279
−7.5%
|
300−310
+7.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 190−200
−14.6%
|
220−230
+14.6%
|
| God of War | 170−180
−14.3%
|
200−210
+14.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
−19%
|
200−210
+19%
|
| Metro Exodus | 164
−15.9%
|
190−200
+15.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−14.3%
|
200−210
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 323
−8.4%
|
350−400
+8.4%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
−10.2%
|
400−450
+10.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 197
−16.8%
|
230−240
+16.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 160−170
−17.3%
|
190−200
+17.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 170−180
−17.6%
|
200−210
+17.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 190−200
−14.6%
|
220−230
+14.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 248
−16.9%
|
290−300
+16.9%
|
| God of War | 170−180
−14.3%
|
200−210
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−14.3%
|
200−210
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 164
−15.9%
|
190−200
+15.9%
|
| Valorant | 411
−9.5%
|
450−500
+9.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 300−350
−15.9%
|
350−400
+15.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
−17.9%
|
230−240
+17.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550
−19.5%
|
600−650
+19.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 130−140
−17.6%
|
160−170
+17.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 102
−17.6%
|
120−130
+17.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−14.3%
|
200−210
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
−12.1%
|
500−550
+12.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 196
−17.3%
|
230−240
+17.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
−8.7%
|
100−105
+8.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
−15.2%
|
190−200
+15.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 231
−16.9%
|
270−280
+16.9%
|
| God of War | 100−110
−17.6%
|
120−130
+17.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 150−160
−17.6%
|
180−190
+17.6%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
−19.2%
|
180−190
+19.2%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−14.9%
|
100−105
+14.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 150−160
−15.4%
|
180−190
+15.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 67
−19.4%
|
80−85
+19.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 122
−14.8%
|
140−150
+14.8%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
−6.1%
|
350−400
+6.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 134
−19.4%
|
160−170
+19.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−14.9%
|
100−105
+14.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−13.6%
|
50−55
+13.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 150−160
−19.5%
|
190−200
+19.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
−15.4%
|
120−130
+15.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 162
−17.3%
|
190−200
+17.3%
|
| God of War | 70−75
−14.3%
|
80−85
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
−14.6%
|
110−120
+14.6%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
−13.9%
|
90−95
+13.9%
|
This is how RX 6900 XT and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell compete in popular games:
- RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is 17% faster in 1080p
- RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is 19% faster in 1440p
- RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is 14% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 63.79 | 76.27 |
| Recency | 28 October 2020 | 18 March 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 96 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 600 Watt |
RX 6900 XT has 100% lower power consumption.
RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell, on the other hand, has a 19.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 40% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 6900 XT in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 6900 XT is a desktop graphics card while RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell 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.
