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

ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£590VRAM:12 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):230 W

ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D
7.3/10

Overall score

Score
7.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components

40%

6.8

Technical score

25%

6.8

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

10

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 54% of graphics cards
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

70%

7.3

Overall score

30%

7.4

Price

▼Worse than 62%
6.8

Technical score

Technical score
6.8/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components

44%

6.1

Performance

24%

5.9

Memory

12%

7.7

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

7.7

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

▼Worse than 54%
6.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.8/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 72% of models

6.8

Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 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.
▼Worse than 72%
?

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
  • asrock-radeon-rx-6700-xt-challenger-d
  • asrock-radeon-rx-6700-xt-challenger-d
  • asrock-radeon-rx-6700-xt-challenger-d
asrock-radeon-rx-6700-xt-challenger-d
asrock-radeon-rx-6700-xt-challenger-d
asrock-radeon-rx-6700-xt-challenger-d
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
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 ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D

Based on 0 · 3

Reviewers agree it runs cool, but ray tracing performance is a clear letdown.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D

Based on 223 owners sharing their experience in online comments

83%positive9%mixed8%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming speed and ample VRAM, while driver issues, heat, and weak ray tracing bother some.

What owners dislike

  • Stuttering and unstable frame rates in games10
  • Owners report driver problems such as random black screens, driver timeouts, and system reboots, especially with automatic Adrenalin driver updates or when Smart Access Memory is enabled.10
  • High hotspot and memory temperatures8
  • Owners say ray tracing performance is weak, with frame rates falling sharply when it is turned on, so many prefer to keep it off.5
  • Some owners say the card falls behind the RTX 3070 and 3060 Ti in some titles, such as Far Cry 6, and the 6800 is clearly faster.4
  • Owners on 4K displays say native 4K gaming can drop to 30 to 40 fps in newer titles, so they rely on FSR upscaling to get playable frame rates.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D

Technical score
Technical score
6.8/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components:

44%

6.1

Performance

24%

5.9

Memory

12%

7.7

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

7.7

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

6.8
Reviews score
6.8
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

7.3

Overall score

30%

7.4

Price

7.3
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
12,000 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 12,000 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 61.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
5,871 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 5,871 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 68.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
18,878 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 18,878 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 64% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
18,866 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 18,866 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 74.5% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
13.21 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 13.21 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 67.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
12 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 12 GB of VRAM, which is more than 46% of graphics cards and equal to 16% 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
192 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 192 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 31.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 18.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
384 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 384 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 60.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% 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
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
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% 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
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
230 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 230 W, which is higher than that of 56.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
230 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 230 W under peak load, which is higher than 53.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
650 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 650 W PSU, which is lower than that of 39.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 13.9% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
230 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 230 W, which is higher than that of 51.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
230 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
269x 134x 41 mm
Length
269 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 269 mm long, which is shorter than 57.7% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.7% of graphics cards.
Height
134 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 134 mm tall, which is taller than 68.4% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.6% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2.1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2.1 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52% of graphics cards and equal in width to 0.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
784 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 784 g, which is lighter than 72.1% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 20.9% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,321 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,321 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 3% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,581 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,581 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 24x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (96 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    96 MB vs 4 MB
  • 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
  • 28.2% higher sentiment score
    10.0 vs 7.8
  • 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
  • 0.4 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2.1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2.1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 28.2% higher sentiment score
    10.0 vs 7.8
  • 20.9% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,321 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,321 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 3% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,581 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,581 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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
  • 24x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (96 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    96 MB vs 4 MB
  • 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
  • 0.4 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2.1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2.1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • 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
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, 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
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 5.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.8/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 72% of models

    6.8

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 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.
    6.8 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 41.5% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (13.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    13.21 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 2 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2021 vs 2023).
    March 2021
    2021 vs 2023
  • 24 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (160 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    160 vs 184
  • 35.8% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (5,871 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    5,871 points vs 9,148 points
  • 16.6% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (18,878 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    18,878 points vs 22,638 points
  • 18.8% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (12,000 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    12,000 points vs 14,779 points
  • 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
  • 87.5% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (3 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    3 MB vs 24 MB
  • 14.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (384 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    384 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 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
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3).
    2.1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 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
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • 7% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (230 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    230 W vs 215 W
  • 3.1 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (38.5 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    38.5 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 5 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (42 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    42 °C vs 37 °C
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 9 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (134 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    134 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

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

8.0
BlueprintPC
≈ estimated
02/04/2021
First look · overview with pros and cons
Verdict
ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D is a good buy at or near MSRP, though its pricing and ray tracing performance are tricky.
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D

  • Excellent value for money and price-to-performance ratio
  • Strong 1440p and high-refresh 1080p gaming performance
  • Ample 12GB VRAM is better for future-proofing than competing 8GB cards
  • Runs relatively cool for a dual-fan design (typically 65-70°C under load)
  • Clean, understated aesthetic with a functional backplate
  • High factory clock speeds with good further overclocking potential

What customers don't like about ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D

  • Fans can become noticeably loud under heavy load or at high RPM
  • Occasional reports of coil whine under high frame rate scenarios
  • Subpar ray tracing performance compared to Nvidia counterparts
  • Lacks premium features like ARGB lighting (standard model)
  • Heatsink and overall build quality feel slightly 'budget' or entry-level
  • Default fan curve may require manual adjustment for optimal silence

Verdict

The ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D is a mid-range graphics card built on AMD's 7nm RDNA 2 architecture, featuring 40 Compute Units, 2560 stream processors, and 12GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit interface with a 16Gbps effective speed. It operates at a base clock of 2321 MHz, a game clock of 2424 MHz, and can boost up to 2581 MHz, drawing a maximum of 230W through two 8-pin power connectors. Main characteristics include its dual-fan cooling system with striped axial fans and 0dB silent cooling technology, along with a stylish metal backplate. Its primary pros are its excellent 1440p gaming performance, high VRAM capacity compared to competitors, and strong price-to-performance ratio. However, some users have noted that the fans can become audible under heavy loads, and the card lacks integrated ARGB lighting.

Compare ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D 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 ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger D and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found