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

ASUS Radeon RX 6800 XT review: 117 specs compared

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

ASUS Radeon RX 6800 XT Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ASUS Radeon RX 6800 XT
7.9/10

Overall score

Score
7.9/ 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 68% of models
Score components

40%

8.1

Technical score

25%

7.5

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 68% of graphics cards
7.7

Value for money

Value for money
7.7/ 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 75% of models
Score components

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

7.1

Price

â–²Better than 75%
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%

7.9

Performance

24%

8.0

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

9.1

Features

5%

7.3

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

â–²Better than 71%
7.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 64% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, 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–¼Worse than 64%
?

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
  • asus-radeon-rx-6800-xt
asus-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 owners say about the ASUS 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 ASUS 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%

7.9

Performance

24%

8.0

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

9.1

Features

5%

7.3

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

8.1
Reviews score
7.5
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.7/ 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 75% of models
Score components:

70%

7.9

Overall score

30%

7.1

Price

7.7
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
15,000 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 15,000 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 51.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
10,000 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 10,000 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is higher than 54.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
24,194 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 24,194 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 55.7% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
13,165 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 13,165 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is higher than 53% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% 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
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
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
32.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 32.4 Gbps, which is faster than on 56.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
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
350 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 350 W under peak load, which is higher than 84.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% 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
320 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 320 W, which is higher than that of 75.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
300 W
Show more
Size
320x 140.2x 57.8 mm
Length
320 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 320 mm long, which is longer than 73.9% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1.4% 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

ASUS 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
  • 19.2% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.8
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 6.6% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,340 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,340 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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
  • 6.6% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,340 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,340 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 45.5% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (320 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    320 W vs 220 W
  • 12 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (49 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    49 °C vs 37 °C
  • 59.1% higher peak power draw
    This graphics card has a higher peak power draw than the average graphics card (350 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    350 W vs 220 W
  • 37.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (320 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    320 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 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

8.0
Nick Wolf Esta Aquí
≈ estimated
02/06/2023
Retrospective review · gaming and streaming tests
Verdict
ASUS Radeon RX 6800 XT is still a capable card at the right price, but missing newer features hold it back.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ASUS Radeon RX 6800 XT

  • Excellent 1440p and competitive 4K gaming performance
  • High power efficiency compared to same-tier Nvidia alternatives
  • Large 16GB VRAM buffer provides better long-term 'future-proofing'
  • Superior thermal management and quiet operation (Strix LC model)
  • Substantial headroom for manual overclocking

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

  • Significantly weaker ray tracing performance compared to RTX 30-series
  • Premium Asus models (Strix LC) carry a heavy price hike over reference cards
  • Historical driver stability issues in certain DirectX 11 or legacy titles
  • Lack of a mature upscaling ecosystem as robust as Nvidia's DLSS
  • Large physical footprint can make radiator or card installation difficult

Verdict

The Asus Radeon RX 6800 XT is a high-performance graphics card built on the RDNA 2 architecture and a 7nm process, featuring 72 Compute Units, 4,608 stream processors, and a substantial 16GB of GDDR6 VRAM on a 256-bit interface. It utilizes 128MB of innovative Infinity Cache to significantly boost effective bandwidth, supporting clock speeds that can reach boost frequencies up to 2,250 MHz (or higher on overclocked models like the TUF or ROG Strix). This card excels in 1440p and native 4K gaming, offering excellent power efficiency compared to its rivals and dedicated hardware for ray tracing. Main pros include its massive VRAM capacity for future-proofing, strong rasterization performance that often rivals the RTX 3080, and high-quality cooling solutions from Asus that ensure quiet operation. However, its main cons are relatively weaker ray tracing performance compared to Nvidia's offerings and a lack of dedicated AI hardware for technologies like DLSS, relying instead on FSR for upscaling.

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

No results found