Radeon PRO W7900 vs RX 6900 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 6900 XT with Radeon PRO W7900, including specs and performance data.
PRO W7900 outperforms RX 6900 XT by a small 6% 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 | 23 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 31.01 | 7.43 |
| Power efficiency | 16.20 | 17.42 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 21 | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 28 October 2020 (4 years ago) | 13 April 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $3,999 |
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 317% better value for money than PRO W7900.
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 | 6144 |
| Core clock speed | 1825 MHz | 1855 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2250 MHz | 2495 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 26,800 million | 57,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 295 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 720.0 | 958.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 23.04 TFLOPS | 61.32 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 128 | 192 |
| TMUs | 320 | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 80 | 96 |
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 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 280 mm |
| Width | 3-slot | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 2x 8-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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 864.0 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 | 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C | 3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1 |
| 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 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
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
−2%
| 200−210
+2%
|
| 1440p | 134
−4.5%
| 140−150
+4.5%
|
| 4K | 83
−2.4%
| 85−90
+2.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.10
+292%
| 20.00
−292%
|
| 1440p | 7.46
+283%
| 28.56
−283%
|
| 4K | 12.04
+291%
| 47.05
−291%
|
- RX 6900 XT has 292% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 6900 XT has 283% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 6900 XT has 291% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+2.3%
|
300−310
−2.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 160−170
−4.9%
|
170−180
+4.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 150−160
−3.2%
|
160−170
+3.2%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 195
−2.6%
|
200−210
+2.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+2.3%
|
300−310
−2.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 160−170
−4.9%
|
170−180
+4.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 190−200
−4.2%
|
200−210
+4.2%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0.7%
|
300−310
−0.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 283
−2.5%
|
290−300
+2.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 190−200
−4.2%
|
200−210
+4.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 150−160
−3.2%
|
160−170
+3.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−2.9%
|
180−190
+2.9%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+3.7%
|
350−400
−3.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 196
−2%
|
200−210
+2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+2.3%
|
300−310
−2.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
−4.3%
|
290−300
+4.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 160−170
−4.9%
|
170−180
+4.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 190−200
−4.2%
|
200−210
+4.2%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0.7%
|
300−310
−0.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 279
−3.9%
|
290−300
+3.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 190−200
−4.2%
|
200−210
+4.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
−1.2%
|
170−180
+1.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 150−160
−3.2%
|
160−170
+3.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 164
−3.7%
|
170−180
+3.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−2.9%
|
180−190
+2.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 323
+7.7%
|
300−310
−7.7%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+3.7%
|
350−400
−3.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 197
−1.5%
|
200−210
+1.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 160−170
−4.9%
|
170−180
+4.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 190−200
−4.2%
|
200−210
+4.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 248
−4.8%
|
260−270
+4.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 150−160
−3.2%
|
160−170
+3.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−2.9%
|
180−190
+2.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 164
−3.7%
|
170−180
+3.7%
|
| Valorant | 411
+2.8%
|
400−450
−2.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0.7%
|
300−310
−0.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200
−2.6%
|
200−210
+2.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550
+0.4%
|
500−550
−0.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 130−140
−2.9%
|
140−150
+2.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 102
+2%
|
100−105
−2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−2.9%
|
180−190
+2.9%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
−0.7%
|
450−500
+0.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 196
−2%
|
200−210
+2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
−3.3%
|
95−100
+3.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
−3%
|
170−180
+3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 231
−3.9%
|
240−250
+3.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 150−160
−4.6%
|
160−170
+4.6%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0.7%
|
150−160
−0.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−3.4%
|
90−95
+3.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 150−160
−2.6%
|
160−170
+2.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
−4.2%
|
50−55
+4.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 67
−4.5%
|
70−75
+4.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 122
+1.7%
|
120−130
−1.7%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+10%
|
300−310
−10%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 134
−4.5%
|
140−150
+4.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
−3.4%
|
90−95
+3.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−2.3%
|
45−50
+2.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 150−160
−0.6%
|
160−170
+0.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+4%
|
100−105
−4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 162
−4.9%
|
170−180
+4.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
−4.2%
|
50−55
+4.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
−4.2%
|
100−105
+4.2%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
−1.3%
|
80−85
+1.3%
|
This is how RX 6900 XT and PRO W7900 compete in popular games:
- PRO W7900 is 2% faster in 1080p
- PRO W7900 is 4% faster in 1440p
- PRO W7900 is 2% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 63.79 | 67.44 |
| Recency | 28 October 2020 | 13 April 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 295 Watt |
PRO W7900 has a 5.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 1.7% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 6900 XT and Radeon PRO W7900.
Be aware that Radeon RX 6900 XT is a desktop graphics card while Radeon PRO W7900 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.
