OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£640VRAM:16 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):300 W

AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 53 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT
8.1/10

Overall score

Score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 76% of models
Score components

40%

8.1

Technical score

25%

8.4

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

9.3

Sentiment score

â–²Better than 76% of graphics cards
7.8

Value for money

Value for money
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 86% of models
Score components

70%

8.1

Overall score

30%

7.1

Price

â–²Better than 86%
8.1

Technical score

Technical score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 71% of models
Score components

44%

7.8

Performance

24%

7.9

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

8.2

Design

4%

8.5

Connectivity

â–²Better than 71%
8.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 85% of models

80%

8.0

Average grade

20%

9.6

Popularity

Grades by review (53)
34 reviews: 19 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 19 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 85%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-radeon-rx-6800-xt
amd-radeon-rx-6800-xt
Where to buy
    N/A~ £640
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT

Based on 34 · 19

Excellent rasterized performance and generous memory impress, but ray tracing and upscaling fall clearly behind the competition.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT

Based on 275 owners sharing their experience in online comments

79%positive10%mixed11%negative

Owners praise fast gaming and generous VRAM; high power draw, heat, and weaker ray tracing are the main drawbacks.

What owners dislike

  • Some owners report crashes, black screens, and stutters, with one saying Resizable BAR caused black screens and another blaming the card for reboots after about 15 minutes.5
  • Owners say ray tracing is weak, especially in path-traced or heavy RT titles like Cyberpunk 2077 and Metro Exodus, where it trails Nvidia cards by a large margin.5
  • Owners report hotspot temperatures often reaching around 110–114°C under load, even with fans maxed, and one suspects poor contact needing a repaste.4
  • Owners say the card draws a lot of power at stock settings, often around 250–285W, which matters more where electricity is expensive; undervolting helps.4

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT

Technical score
Technical score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 71% of models
Score components:

44%

7.8

Performance

24%

7.9

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

8.2

Design

4%

8.5

Connectivity

8.1
Reviews score
8.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 86% of models
Score components:

70%

8.1

Overall score

30%

7.1

Price

7.8
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
19,000 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 19,000 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 62.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
9,200 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 9,200 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 51% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
25,000 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 25,000 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 57.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
13,173 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 13,173 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 53.4% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
20.74 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 20.74 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 55.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
16 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 16 GB of VRAM, which is more than 62% of graphics cards and equal to 28.1% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 50.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.5% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
512 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 512 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is higher than that of 60.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
16,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 16,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 63.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
2
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 2 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 78.3% of graphics cards and equal to 9.8% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
300 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 300 W, which is higher than that of 72.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.4% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
325 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 325 W under peak load, which is higher than 82% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
750 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 750 W PSU, which is higher than that of 65.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 16.8% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
300 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 300 W, which is higher than that of 68.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
300 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
267x 120x 50 mm
Length
267 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 267 mm long, which is shorter than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 3.5% of graphics cards.
Height
120 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 120 mm tall, which is shorter than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal in height to 5.3% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2.5 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s, which is slimmer than 35.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 14.7% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,505 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,505 g, which is heavier than 75.1% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 64 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (128 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    128 vs 64
  • 32 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (72 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    72 vs 40
  • 32 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (72 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    72 vs 40
  • 78.5% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (288 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    288 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 104 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (288 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    288 vs 184
  • 4 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (16 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    16 GB vs 12 GB
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 71.4% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (648 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    648 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 16.7% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.4/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 85% of models

    80%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    9.6

    Popularity

    Grades by review (53)
    34 reviews: 19 with a printed score, 15 estimated from the review. 19 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.4 vs 7.2
  • 19.2% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.8
  • 5.6% better value for money
    AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT has better value for money than the average graphics card (7.83 vs 7.4).
    7.83 vs 7.41
  • 64 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (128 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    128 vs 64
  • 32 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (72 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    72 vs 40
  • 32 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (72 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    72 vs 40
  • 78.5% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (288 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    288 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 104 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (288 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    288 vs 184
  • 71.4% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (648 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    648 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 2.71x higher FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP64 performance than the average graphics card (1.3 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    1.3 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 4 GB more VRAM
    This graphics card has more VRAM than the average graphics card (16 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    16 GB vs 12 GB
  • 64 bit wider memory bus
    This graphics card has a wider memory bus than the average graphics card (256 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    256 bit vs 192 bit
  • 32x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (128 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    128 MB vs 4 MB
  • 14.3% higher memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (512 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    512 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 1 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    1 vs 0
  • Uses hybrid cooling
    This graphics card uses hybrid cooling, the average graphics card does not.
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 10.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 40% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (7 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    7 nm vs 5 nm
  • 39.5% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (300 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    300 W vs 215 W
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 10.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 3 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2020 vs 2023).
    November 2020
    2020 vs 2023
  • 4.9% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,825 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,825 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 8.2% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (20.7 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    20.74 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 15.8% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (16,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    16,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 83.3% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (4 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    4 MB vs 24 MB
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 40% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (7 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    7 nm vs 5 nm
  • 76.9% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (520 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    520 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    2 vs 3
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 39.5% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (300 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    300 W vs 215 W
  • 15.4% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (750 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    750 W vs 650 W
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • 36.4% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (300 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    300 W vs 220 W
  • 10 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (77 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    77 °C vs 67 °C
  • 47.7% higher peak power draw
    This graphics card has a higher peak power draw than the average graphics card (325 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    325 W vs 220 W
  • 48.4% heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (1,505 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    1,505 g vs 1,014 g

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Jason Witmer
≈ estimated
26/05/2025
Benchmark review · used-market value and game tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is not perfect, but it is a strong 1440p gaming value with 16 GB of VRAM and solid raw performance.
9.0
PC Perspective
≈ estimated
25/05/2022
Long-term review · over a year of use
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT has outstanding build quality and cooling, and at near-MSRP prices it is a reasonable buy.
9.0
Daniel Owen
≈ estimated
23/08/2021
Hands-on review · several days of 4K gaming
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT delivers excellent 4K performance for the money, though at the same cost the RTX 3080 is the better pick.
8.0
Nicolas11x12 English
≈ estimated
27/03/2021
Hands-on review · benchmarks, power and temperature tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is a good pick for raw rasterization, but ray tracing, encoding and software support trail Nvidia.
9.0
Greg Salazar
≈ estimated
18/11/2020
Hands-on review · card testing and price assessment
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is a strong buy at its price if you can find one near launch, with excellent 4K gaming performance.
8.0
Gamers Nexus
≈ estimated
18/11/2020
Hands-on review · performance, thermals and overclocking
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT has strong rasterization but weak ray tracing, so wait for a partner model rather than the reference card.
8.0
Gear Seekers
≈ estimated
18/11/2020
Hands-on review · Windows and Linux tests · thermals and noise
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is a step in the right direction, with compelling value but driver and launch availability concerns.
9.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
18/11/2020
Benchmark review · 18 games, ray tracing, SAM and thermals
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT leaves no reason to choose the RTX 3080 if both cards are available.
8.0
Cheap Bastard
≈ estimated
19/12/2025
Hands-on review · game benchmarks at 1080p and 1440p
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is a solid choice at a good used price, though a 4060 Ti 16 GB is the better buy.
8.0
CrazyTechLab
≈ estimated
18/11/2020
Launch review · benchmarks against RTX 3080 and 3070
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT offers well-priced rasterization performance and a cool, quiet build, but ray tracing and DLSS trail Nvidia.
6.0
Linus Tech Tips
≈ estimated
18/11/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks, ray tracing and feature tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT lives up to AMD's launch promises, but weaker ray tracing and features make it a hard sell at this price.
9.0
Hardware Canucks
≈ estimated
18/11/2020
Review · benchmarks, temperatures and noise
Verdict
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is a strong alternative to the RTX 3080, cheaper and drawing less power, though ray tracing lags.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
techradar.com
✓ explicit
31/07/2022
Benchmark review · Gaming and ray tracing
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT is AMD's first high-end card in years to challenge Nvidia, but it trails in DirectX 12 games and ray tracing.
8.0
gamespot.com
≈ estimated
20/11/2020
Game benchmarks · Native 4K gaming
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT handles native 4K gaming well in games without ray tracing, while Nvidia's ray tracing and DLSS remain ahead.
7.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
18/11/2020
Lab review · Launch-day drivers
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT is fast in some games, but its early drivers are inconsistent, so early adopters should wait for updates.
6.0
pugetsystems.com
≈ estimated
01/12/2020
Benchmark test · Video editing
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT beats older AMD cards in Premiere Pro, but trails Nvidia's RTX 3070 by about 8%, so Nvidia is the better choice for editing.
9.0
pcper.com
≈ estimated
18/11/2020
Benchmark review · Power and heat
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT trades blows with the RTX 3080, and the RX 6800 often beats the RTX 3070, though the RTX 3080 still wins some 4K tests.
9.0
overclockers.com
≈ estimated
18/11/2020
Lab review · Synthetic benchmarks
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT puts AMD back at the high end, trading blows with the RTX 3080 and, once overclocked, beating the RTX 3090 in Fire Strike Extreme.
5.0
lttlabs.com
≈ estimated
17/07/2024
Lab test · Gaming benchmarks
Verdict
The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is a decent mid-range card with 16 GB of memory, but it ranks near the bottom in gaming tests and struggles with ray tracing.
7.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
18/11/2020
Benchmark review · Overclocking and drivers
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT has great potential and can match the RTX 3080, but inconsistent launch drivers keep it from earning a top recommendation.
8.0
theverge.com
✓ explicit
18/11/2020
Hands-on test · 1440p gaming
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT is a worthy RTX 3080 rival for 1440p gaming, but ray tracing and some 4K games still favor Nvidia.
6.5
custompc.com
✓ explicit
12/11/2021
Benchmark review · Shader performance
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT suits players who skip ray tracing, beating the RTX 3080 at 1080p and 1440p, but struggles at 4K.
8.0
gizbot.com
✓ explicit
18/02/2021
Benchmark review · 4K gaming
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT is a good 4K card for games without ray tracing, but it is slightly slower than the RTX 3080 in ray-traced titles.
8.0
pcworld.com
✓ explicit
04/12/2020
Lab test · Custom-cooled card
Verdict
The Sapphire Nitro+ Radeon RX 6800 XT is a cool, fast card for 4K and 1440p gaming, with Trixx Boost adding extra speed.
forbes.com
18/11/2020
Not graded yet
8.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
18/11/2020
Full review · Two reference cards
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT is a strong rival to the RTX 3080 with a well-built, quiet cooler, though Nvidia keeps some strengths.
9.0
pcgameshardware.de
≈ estimated
18/11/2020
Lab test · Big Navi launch
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT is a strong card for 4K games without ray tracing, but ray tracing and DLSS-supported titles still favor the GeForce RTX 3080.
8.8
chip.de
✓ explicit
18/11/2020
Lab test · High-end graphics card
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT is AMD's first high-end card in years that keeps pace with the RTX 3080, but it falls behind in DLSS-supported games.
9.5
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
18/11/2020
Hands-on test · Reference design
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT is a fast card that finally challenges the RTX 3080, though it lacks DLSS and needs a Ryzen 5000 CPU for Smart Access Memory.
8.0
pcgameshardware.de
≈ estimated
18/11/2020
Lab test · Noise and power
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT draws about 70 W more than the RX 6800 for its extra speed, yet stays quieter thanks to a taller cooler.
9.0
computerbild.de
≈ estimated
18/11/2020
Benchmark test · Power and noise
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT is fast, quiet and efficient, almost matching the RTX 3080 in 4K gaming, though its ray tracing still has early problems.
8.0
pcwelt.de
≈ estimated
18/11/2020
Benchmark test · Nvidia comparison
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6800 XT is a 1440p card that beats the RTX 3080 in many games without ray tracing, but falls behind with ray tracing and draws 300 W.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT

  • Excellent 1440p and 4K rasterization performance
  • Large 16GB VRAM buffer provides good future-proofing for modern titles
  • Strong value proposition, often priced lower than the competing RTX 3080
  • Substantial overclocking headroom, with some cards reaching up to 2.8GHz
  • Innovative features like Infinity Cache and Smart Access Memory (SAM) boost performance
  • Generally quiet operation and efficient cooling in reference and partner models

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT

  • Significantly weaker ray tracing performance compared to Nvidia RTX 30-series
  • Initial driver and firmware instability reported by early adopters
  • Lacks a dedicated hardware upscaling solution equivalent to Nvidia's DLSS
  • Subpar video encoding performance for creative professionals compared to Team Green
  • Occasional 'coil whine' reported by some users during high GPU utilization
  • Inconsistent frame rates in certain legacy AAA games and specific benchmarks

Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT is a high-end graphics card built on the 7nm RDNA 2 architecture, featuring 72 compute units, 4,608 stream processors, and a boost clock speed of up to 2,250 MHz. It is equipped with 16GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, bolstered by 128MB of AMD Infinity Cache to significantly increase effective bandwidth for high-performance 4K gaming. Main advantages include exceptional rasterization performance that rivals or exceeds the RTX 3080, superior VRAM capacity for modern titles, and relatively high energy efficiency with a 300W TBP. However, it falls behind competitors in hardware-accelerated ray tracing performance and lacks a direct equivalent to proprietary features like DLSS, relying instead on the broader FSR ecosystem.

Compare AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found