Radeon RX 6850M XT vs RX 6900
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 6900 with Radeon RX 6850M XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 6900 outperforms RX 6850M XT by an impressive 54% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 28 | 81 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 18.53 | 18.61 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Navi 21 | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 28 October 2020 (4 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
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 | 4608 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 2321 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2105 MHz | 2581 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 23,000 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 255 Watt | 165 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 606.2 | 413.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 19.4 TFLOPS | 13.21 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 288 | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |
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 | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 16 GB/s | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 384.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
Connectivity and outputs
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 | + | - |
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 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| 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 | 210−220
+53.3%
| 137
−53.3%
|
| 1440p | 130−140
+52.9%
| 85
−52.9%
|
| 4K | 85−90
+49.1%
| 57
−49.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 160
+0%
|
160
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 136
+0%
|
136
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 113
+0%
|
113
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 126
+0%
|
126
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 116
+0%
|
116
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 198
+0%
|
198
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 280−290
+0%
|
280−290
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
This is how RX 6900 and RX 6850M XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6900 is 53% faster in 1080p
- RX 6900 is 53% faster in 1440p
- RX 6900 is 49% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 59.82 | 38.87 |
| Recency | 28 October 2020 | 4 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 12 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 255 Watt | 165 Watt |
RX 6900 has a 53.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 6850M XT, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 54.5% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 6900 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 6850M XT in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 6900 is a desktop card while Radeon RX 6850M XT is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
