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 Pro OC review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£330VRAM:12 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):230 W

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

ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger Pro OC
7.5/10

Overall score

Score
7.5/ 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
▲ Better than 54% of models
Score components

40%

6.9

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

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

10%

10

Sentiment score

▲Better than 54% of graphics cards
7.9

Value for money

Value for money
7.9/ 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
★ Better than 94% of models
Score components

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

8.8

Price

★Better than 94%
6.9

Technical score

Technical score
6.9/ 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 51% of models
Score components

44%

6.2

Performance

24%

5.9

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

7.4

Design

4%

9.0

Connectivity

▼Worse than 51%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

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-pro-oc
asrock-radeon-rx-6700-xt-challenger-pro-oc
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 owners say about the ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger Pro OC

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 Pro OC

Technical score
Technical score
6.9/ 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 51% of models
Score components:

44%

6.2

Performance

24%

5.9

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

7.4

Design

4%

9.0

Connectivity

6.9
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.9/ 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
★ Better than 94% of models
Score components:

70%

7.5

Overall score

30%

8.8

Price

7.9
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
13,434 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 13,434 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 55.8% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
6,400 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 6,400 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 63.6% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
19,750 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 19,750 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 61.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
19,729 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 19,729 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 79.9% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
13.41 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 13.41 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 66% 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
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
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
16.2 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 16.2 Gbps, which is slower than on 59% of graphics cards and equal to 2% 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
700 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 700 W PSU, which is higher than that of 60.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% 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
Size
303x 131x 45 mm
Length
303 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 303 mm long, which is longer than 61.6% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.2% of graphics cards.
Height
131 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 131 mm tall, which is taller than 62.4% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.9% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
890 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 890 g, which is lighter than 64.4% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of Graphics cards.
Show more

ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger Pro OC vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 23.7% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,375 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,375 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 4.6% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,620 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,620 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
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 28.2% higher sentiment score
    10.0 vs 7.8
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 28.2% higher sentiment score
    10.0 vs 7.8
  • 6.5% better value for money
    ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger Pro OC has better value for money than the average graphics card (7.89 vs 7.4).
    7.89 vs 7.41
  • 23.7% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,375 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,375 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 4.6% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,620 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,620 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
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 58.3% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (5 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    5 W vs 12 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 40.7% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (13.4 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    13.41 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
  • 12.8% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (19,750 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    19,750 points vs 22,638 points
  • 30% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (6,400 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    6,400 points vs 9,148 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
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.6 vs 6.8).
    6.6 vs 6.8
  • 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
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • 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
  • 7.7% higher PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a higher PSU requirement than the average graphics card (700 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    700 W vs 650 W
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 20.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (303 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    303 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 6 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (131 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    131 mm vs 125 mm

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger Pro OC

  • Strong 1440p gaming performance with solid frame rates in modern titles
  • Generous 12GB VRAM capacity prevents bottlenecks and aids in future-proofing
  • Effective triple-fan cooling system that maintains stable core temperatures around 70-71°C under load
  • Quiet operation under typical loads, supported by a 0dB silent cooling mode during idle
  • Enhanced build quality including a reinforced metal backplate and a 10-phase VRM solution
  • Consistently praised as high value for money, especially in the budget 1440p market

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

  • Large physical dimensions (315mm length, triple-slot) can cause clearance issues in smaller cases
  • Noticeable fan noise or 'loud' operation when pushed to its limits or using default fan curves
  • Reports of minor coil whine in some units under heavy load
  • Ray tracing performance is underwhelming compared to similarly priced NVIDIA alternatives
  • Occasional software/driver-related flickering when syncing with third-party RGB controllers

Verdict

The ASRock Radeon RX 6700 XT Challenger Pro OC is a mid-range graphics card built on the 7nm RDNA 2 architecture, featuring 12GB of GDDR6 VRAM on a 192-bit bus and 2,560 stream processors. This factory-overclocked edition delivers a boost clock of up to 2620 MHz and a game clock of 2474 MHz, specifically optimized for high-refresh 1440p gaming with DirectX 12 Ultimate and ray tracing support. Its primary strengths include a robust triple-fan cooling system with Striped Axial Fans, 0dB silent cooling for light workloads, and a protective metal backplate. However, potential drawbacks include its large 303mm length which may not fit in smaller cases, a higher recommended PSU requirement of 700W compared to reference models, and relatively weaker ray tracing performance when compared to NVIDIA competitors.

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

No results found