Radeon PRO W7800 vs RX 6950 XT

Place in the ranking	16	14
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	27.21	31.10
Power efficiency	15.07	19.63
Architecture	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Navi 21	Navi 31
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	10 May 2022 (2 years ago)	13 April 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,099	$2,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

PRO W7800 has 14% better value for money than RX 6950 XT.

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	4480
Core clock speed	1925 MHz	1895 MHz
Boost clock speed	2324 MHz	2525 MHz
Number of transistors	26,800 million	57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	335 Watt	260 Watt
Texture fill rate	743.7	707.0
Floating-point processing power	23.8 TFLOPS	45.25 TFLOPS
ROPs	128	128
TMUs	320	280
Ray Tracing Cores	80	70

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	2-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	32 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	2250 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	576.0 GB/s	576.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a	3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1
HDMI	+	-

API 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	2.2
Vulkan	1.3	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. 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.

RX 6950 XT 73.17

PRO W7800 73.96
+1.1%

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 6950 XT 28137

PRO W7800 28439
+1.1%

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	221 +0.5%	220−230 −0.5%
1440p	134 +3.1%	130−140 −3.1%
4K	86 +1.2%	85−90 −1.2%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.97 +128%	11.36 −128%
1440p	8.20 +134%	19.22 −134%
4K	12.78 +130%	29.40 −130%

RX 6950 XT has 128% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RX 6950 XT has 134% lower cost per frame in 1440p
RX 6950 XT has 130% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	204 +2%	200−210 −2%
Cyberpunk 2077	161 +0.6%	160−170 −0.6%
Elden Ring	247 +2.9%	240−250 −2.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +6.4%	110−120 −6.4%
Counter-Strike 2	198 −1%	200−210 +1%
Cyberpunk 2077	71 +1.4%	70−75 −1.4%
Forza Horizon 4	500 +0%	500−550 +0%
Metro Exodus	152 +1.3%	150−160 −1.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	130−140 +3.1%	130−140 −3.1%
Valorant	350−400 +9.7%	350−400 −9.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +6.4%	110−120 −6.4%
Counter-Strike 2	168 +5%	160−170 −5%
Cyberpunk 2077	64 +6.7%	60−65 −6.7%
Dota 2	181 +0.6%	180−190 −0.6%
Elden Ring	343 +14.3%	300−310 −14.3%
Far Cry 5	99 −1%	100−105 +1%
Fortnite	290−300 +0.3%	290−300 −0.3%
Forza Horizon 4	442 +10.5%	400−450 −10.5%
Grand Theft Auto V	172 +1.2%	170−180 −1.2%
Metro Exodus	146 +4.3%	140−150 −4.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	210−220 +2.4%	210−220 −2.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	130−140 +3.1%	130−140 −3.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	170−180 +2.4%	170−180 −2.4%
Valorant	350−400 +9.7%	350−400 −9.7%
World of Tanks	270−280 −0.4%	280−290 +0.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +6.4%	110−120 −6.4%
Counter-Strike 2	153 +2%	150−160 −2%
Cyberpunk 2077	61 +1.7%	60−65 −1.7%
Dota 2	167 +4.4%	160−170 −4.4%
Far Cry 5	130−140 +6.2%	130−140 −6.2%
Forza Horizon 4	396 −1%	400−450 +1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	210−220 +2.4%	210−220 −2.4%
Valorant	350−400 +9.7%	350−400 −9.7%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	153 +2%	150−160 −2%
Elden Ring	192 +1.1%	190−200 −1.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	153 +2%	150−160 −2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +2.9%	170−180 −2.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	90−95 +3.3%	90−95 −3.3%
World of Tanks	500−550 +3.2%	500−550 −3.2%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +2.4%	85−90 −2.4%
Counter-Strike 2	97 +2.1%	95−100 −2.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	47 +4.4%	45−50 −4.4%
Far Cry 5	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	294 +1.4%	290−300 −1.4%
Metro Exodus	132 +1.5%	130−140 −1.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	160−170 +3.8%	160−170 −3.8%
Valorant	300−350 +9.7%	300−310 −9.7%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	58 +5.5%	55−60 −5.5%
Dota 2	174 +2.4%	170−180 −2.4%
Elden Ring	92 +2.2%	90−95 −2.2%
Grand Theft Auto V	174 +2.4%	170−180 −2.4%
Metro Exodus	77 +2.7%	75−80 −2.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	200−210 −0.5%	210−220 +0.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +6.7%	60−65 −6.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	174 +2.4%	170−180 −2.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +1.1%	90−95 −1.1%
Counter-Strike 2	90−95 +3.3%	90−95 −3.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	23 +9.5%	21−24 −9.5%
Dota 2	141 +0.7%	140−150 −0.7%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +5%	100−105 −5%
Fortnite	95−100 +1.1%	95−100 −1.1%
Forza Horizon 4	172 +1.2%	170−180 −1.2%
Valorant	190−200 +0.5%	190−200 −0.5%

This is how RX 6950 XT and PRO W7800 compete in popular games:

A tie in 1080p
RX 6950 XT is 3% faster in 1440p
RX 6950 XT is 1% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	73.17	73.96
Recency	10 May 2022	13 April 2023
Maximum RAM amount	16 GB	32 GB
Chip lithography	7 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	335 Watt	260 Watt

PRO W7800 has a 1.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 28.8% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 6950 XT and Radeon PRO W7800.

Be aware that Radeon RX 6950 XT is a desktop card while Radeon PRO W7800 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.