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 6800 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£690VRAM:16 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):250 W

ASRock Radeon RX 6800 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 6800
7.8/10

Overall score

Score
7.8/ 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 62% of models
Score components

40%

7.6

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%

9.6

Sentiment score

▲Better than 62% of graphics cards
7.5

Value for money

Value for money
7.5/ 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 54% of models
Score components

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

6.9

Price

▲Better than 54%
7.6

Technical score

Technical score
7.6/ 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
▲ Better than 61% of models
Score components

44%

6.6

Performance

24%

8.0

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

9.1

Features

5%

7.2

Design

4%

8.7

Connectivity

▲Better than 61%
?

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-6800
asrock-radeon-rx-6800
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 6800

Based on 209 owners sharing their experience in online comments

88%positive5%mixed7%negative

Owners praise strong gaming performance, generous VRAM and efficient power use; weak ray tracing and occasional driver issues frustrate some.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say ray tracing is the card's weakest area, roughly on par with an RTX 3060 Ti in RT performance.3
  • Some owners report artifacts and driver crashes after months of use. One reports a DisplayPort monitor shutting off when a TV is connected over HDMI.3
  • Some owners get lower frame rates than reviews show, such as about 40 to 70 fps in Spider-Man at 1080p high, with clocks dropping well below boost.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card ASRock Radeon RX 6800

Technical score
Technical score
7.6/ 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
▲ Better than 61% of models
Score components:

44%

6.6

Performance

24%

8.0

Memory

12%

8.6

Power

11%

9.1

Features

5%

7.2

Design

4%

8.7

Connectivity

7.6
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.5/ 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 54% of models
Score components:

70%

7.8

Overall score

30%

6.9

Price

7.5
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
17,523 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 17,523 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
8,300 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 8,300 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 56.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
22,056 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 22,056 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 54.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
10,763 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 10,763 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 57.5% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
16.17 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 16.17 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 61.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
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
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
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% 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
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
1.4
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
20 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 20 Gbps, which is slower than on 50.4% of graphics cards and equal to 7.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
250 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 250 W, which is higher than that of 59.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
223 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 223 W under peak load, which is higher than 52.3% 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
250 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 250 W, which is higher than that of 56% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
250 W
Show more
Size
267x 120x 40 mm
Length
305 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 305 mm long, which is longer than 65.2% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.1% 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
2.75 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2.75 slot/s, which is wider than 68.1% of graphics cards and equal in width to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,306 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,306 g, which is heavier than 66.4% of Graphics cards.
Show more

ASRock Radeon RX 6800 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 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
  • 20 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (60 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    60 vs 40
  • 32 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (96 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    96 vs 64
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 20 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (60 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    60 vs 40
  • 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
  • 56 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (240 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    240 vs 184
  • 23.1% higher sentiment score
    9.6 vs 7.8
  • 20 more compute units
    This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (60 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    60 vs 40
  • 32 more ROPs
    This graphics card has more ROPs than the average graphics card (96 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    96 vs 64
  • 20 more ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has more ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (60 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    60 vs 40
  • 56 more TMUs
    This graphics card has more TMUs than the average graphics card (240 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    240 vs 184
  • 33.7% higher texture rate
    This graphics card has a higher texture rate than the average graphics card (505.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    505.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 25.3% higher pixel rate
    This graphics card has a higher pixel rate than the average graphics card (202.1 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    202.1 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/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
  • 2.1x higher FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a higher FP64 performance than the average graphics card (1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    1.01 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
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 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
  • 4x higher HDMI bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher HDMI bandwidth than the average graphics card (48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps). The average graphics card has HDMI bandwidth of 12 Gbps.
    48 Gbps vs 12 Gbps
  • 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
  • 16% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,105 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,105 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 32.7% more expensive
    ASRock Radeon RX 6800 is more expensive than the average graphics card (£690 vs £520).
    £690 vs £520
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 16% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,105 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,105 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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
  • 11.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,700 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,700 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 3 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2020 vs 2023).
    November 2020
    2020 vs 2023
  • 28.5% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (16.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    16.17 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
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 16.3% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (250 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    250 W vs 215 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
  • 13.6% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (250 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    250 W vs 220 W
  • 22.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (305 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    305 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.25 slot/s wider design
    This graphics card occupies more slots than the average graphics card (2.8 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2.75 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ASRock Radeon RX 6800

  • Excellent 1440p performance, often outperforming the RTX 3070 in traditional rasterisation tasks.
  • Generous 16GB of GDDR6 VRAM provides better longevity for modern, memory-intensive games compared to 8GB or 12GB rivals.
  • High power efficiency and overclocking headroom, with some users reaching over 2.5 GHz stable clocks.
  • Reliable cooling and quiet operation, particularly on custom ASRock models like the Phantom Gaming series.
  • Solid value proposition in the second-hand market or during sales, often priced lower than equivalent NVIDIA cards.

What customers don't like about ASRock Radeon RX 6800

  • Substantial performance hit when enabling Ray Tracing, falling significantly behind NVIDIA's RTX 30-series.
  • Lack of a native DLSS equivalent at launch made upscaling less effective for maintaining high frame rates in demanding titles.
  • Reported driver-stability issues and inconsistent performance in older 'legacy' AAA titles.
  • Can run warmer than some competitors, with junction temperatures reaching up to 80-85°C under heavy load.
  • Aggressive downclocking in less demanding games can occasionally cause micro-stutters unless manually tuned in software.

Verdict

The ASRock Radeon RX 6800 is a high-performance graphics card built on the AMD RDNA 2 architecture, featuring 60 Compute Units, 3,840 stream processors, and a substantial 16GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus. Designed for serious 1440p and entry-level 4K gaming, it includes 128MB of AMD Infinity Cache and supports hardware ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate. Main pros include its massive VRAM capacity, which outperforms competitors in texture-heavy scenarios, and ASRock’s robust cooling solutions like the triple-fan Striped Axial Fan system that maintains low temperatures and 0dB silent operation. However, its main cons include relatively weaker ray tracing performance compared to NVIDIA alternatives and a lack of native DLSS support, relying instead on AMD's upscaling features.

Compare ASRock Radeon RX 6800 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 6800 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found