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

GIGABYTE Radeon RX 6700 XT review: 117 specs compared

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

GIGABYTE Radeon RX 6700 XT Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

GIGABYTE Radeon RX 6700 XT
7.7/10

Overall score

Score
7.7/ 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 59% of models
Score components

40%

7.0

Technical score

25%

8.1

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

â–²Better than 59% of graphics cards
7.6

Value for money

Value for money
7.6/ 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 62% of models
Score components

70%

7.7

Overall score

30%

7.4

Price

â–²Better than 62%
7.0

Technical score

Technical score
7.0/ 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 51% of models
Score components

44%

6.1

Performance

24%

6.0

Memory

12%

8.7

Power

11%

9.0

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

8.4

Connectivity

â–²Better than 51%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 60%
?

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
  • gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
gigabyte-radeon-rx-6700-xt
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 GIGABYTE Radeon RX 6700 XT

Based on 2 · 2

Reviewers praise its strong gaming performance and effective cooling, but agree ray tracing is its weak spot.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the GIGABYTE Radeon RX 6700 XT

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 GIGABYTE Radeon RX 6700 XT

Technical score
Technical score
7.0/ 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 51% of models
Score components:

44%

6.1

Performance

24%

6.0

Memory

12%

8.7

Power

11%

9.0

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

8.4

Connectivity

7.0
Reviews score
8.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.6/ 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 62% of models
Score components:

70%

7.7

Overall score

30%

7.4

Price

7.6
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
14,000 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 14,000 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 51.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.6% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
5,935 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 5,935 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 67.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
19,749 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 19,749 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 61.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
9,299 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 9,299 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 62.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% 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
What reviewers say
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
1.3
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.
vendor-name or prompt-tail contamination removed; Vulkan version unresolved.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
2
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 2 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 78.3% of graphics cards and equal to 9.8% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
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
281x 115x 49 mm
Length
281 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 281 mm long, which is shorter than 50.7% of graphics cards and equal in length to 1% of graphics cards.
Height
113 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 113 mm tall, which is shorter than 75.7% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.6% 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

GIGABYTE Radeon RX 6700 XT vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 4.7% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,622 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,622 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 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
  • 12.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 60% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 12.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 60% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 7.2
  • 28.2% higher sentiment score
    10.0 vs 7.8
  • 4.7% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,622 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,622 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 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
  • 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
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 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
  • 50% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (6 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    6 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
  • 12 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (113 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    113 mm vs 125 mm
  • 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
  • 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 AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    2 vs 3
  • 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
  • 35.1% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (5,935 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    5,935 points vs 9,148 points
  • 12.8% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (19,749 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    19,749 points vs 22,638 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
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    vendor-name or prompt-tail contamination removed; Vulkan version unresolved.
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    2 vs 3
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • 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
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 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
  • 9 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (46 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    46 °C vs 37 °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

Video reviews

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

8.0
Laurent's Choice
≈ estimated
10/04/2021
Hands-on review · benchmarks, gaming, cooling and mining tests
Verdict
GIGABYTE Radeon RX 6700 XT is excellent for classic 1440p gaming at its price, but weak at ray tracing and mining.
Not graded
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.5
muycomputer.com
✓ explicit
23/05/2021
Full review · AMD reference card
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6700 XT is a strong 1440p card with 12GB of memory, though ray tracing is demanding and 4K results drop off.
7.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
17/03/2021
Lab test · Heat and noise
Verdict
The Gigabyte RX 6700 XT Gaming OC runs cool and quiet for Quad HD gaming, but it draws more power than AMD's reference card and trails Nvidia in ray tracing.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about GIGABYTE Radeon RX 6700 XT

  • Excellent 1080p and 1440p gaming performance in non-ray-traced titles
  • Effective Windforce 3X cooling system that keeps the card quiet and cool under load
  • Generous 12GB of VRAM provides better future-proofing for memory-intensive games
  • Clean, colour-neutral design that fits well in most PC builds
  • Strong efficiency with reasonable power draw for its performance class

What customers don't like about GIGABYTE Radeon RX 6700 XT

  • Significantly weaker ray tracing performance compared to competing Nvidia RTX cards
  • Lack of dual-BIOS functionality on some models like the Gaming OC
  • Software and driver instability issues occasionally reported by users during initial setup
  • High MSRP and street pricing made it a tough value proposition at launch
  • Lack of support for DLSS, though it supports AMD's alternative FSR

Verdict

The Gigabyte Radeon RX 6700 XT is a mid-range graphics card built on the 7nm RDNA 2 architecture, featuring 40 compute units, 2,560 stream processors, and a substantial 12GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit interface. It is specifically engineered for high-performance 1440p gaming, utilizing 96MB of AMD Infinity Cache to boost effective bandwidth and reaching boost clock speeds of up to 2581 MHz (reference) or higher on factory-overclocked Gigabyte models like the Gaming OC. Main pros include its generous VRAM capacity for its tier, strong rasterization performance that excels in 1080p and 1440p scenarios, and efficient power draw typically rated at 230W. However, its primary cons are relatively weak ray-tracing performance compared to competitors and a narrower memory bus that can lead to performance drops at 4K resolutions.

Compare GIGABYTE Radeon RX 6700 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 GIGABYTE Radeon RX 6700 XT and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found