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

PowerColor Radeon RX 6700 XT review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£520VRAM:12 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):230 W

PowerColor Radeon RX 6700 XT Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 9 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

PowerColor Radeon RX 6700 XT
7.6/10

Overall score

Score
7.6/ 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%

6.8

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
7.7

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%

7.6

Overall score

30%

7.8

Price

â–²Better than 75%
6.8

Technical score

Technical score
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
Score components

44%

6.2

Performance

24%

5.9

Memory

12%

8.7

Power

11%

9.1

Features

5%

6.2

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 52%
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%

8.0

Average grade

20%

8.5

Popularity

Grades by review (9)
6 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
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
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
  • powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
powercolor-radeon-rx-6700-xt
powercolor-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 PowerColor Radeon RX 6700 XT

Based on 6 · 3

Reviewers praise low temperatures and quiet running, but criticize weak ray tracing, limited overclocking and poor pricing and stock.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the PowerColor 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 PowerColor Radeon RX 6700 XT

Technical score
Technical score
6.8/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 52% of models
Score components:

44%

6.2

Performance

24%

5.9

Memory

12%

8.7

Power

11%

9.1

Features

5%

6.2

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

6.8
Reviews score
8.1
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%

7.6

Overall score

30%

7.8

Price

7.7
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
13,000 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 13,000 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 58.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
7,171 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 7,171 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 61.7% 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
7,075 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 7,075 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 75.1% 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.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
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
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
213 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 213 W, which is lower than that of 54.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
230 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
267x 110x 40 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
130 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 130 mm tall, which is taller than 59.3% of graphics cards and equal in height to 2.8% of graphics cards.
Slot width
3 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 3 slot/s, which is wider than 70.7% of graphics cards and equal in width to 16.8% of graphics cards.
Weight
655 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 655 g, which is lighter than 82.9% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

PowerColor Radeon RX 6700 XT vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 20.9% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,321 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,321 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 3% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,581 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,581 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 24x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (96 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    96 MB vs 4 MB
  • 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%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    6 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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%

    8.0

    Average grade

    20%

    8.5

    Popularity

    Grades by review (9)
    6 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 7.2
  • 28.2% higher sentiment score
    10.0 vs 7.8
  • 20.9% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,321 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,321 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 3% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,581 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,581 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 24x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (96 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    96 MB vs 4 MB
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 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
  • 3.33x higher HDMI bandwidth
    This graphics card has a higher HDMI bandwidth than the average graphics card (40 Gbps vs 12 Gbps). The average graphics card has HDMI bandwidth of 12 Gbps.
    40 Gbps vs 12 Gbps
  • 7.4 dB quieter under load
    This graphics card has a lower load noise level than the average graphics card (28 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    28 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 104 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (40 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    40 vs 144
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 104 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (40 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    40 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
  • 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
  • 21.6% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (7,171 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    7,171 points vs 9,148 points
  • 41.4% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (7,075 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    7,075 points vs 12,070.5 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 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
  • 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
  • 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 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (74 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    74 °C vs 67 °C
  • 41.7% higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (17 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    17 W vs 12 W
  • 6 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (43 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    43 °C vs 37 °C
  • 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
  • 0.5 slot/s wider design
    This graphics card occupies more slots than the average graphics card (3 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    3 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 5 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (130 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    130 mm vs 125 mm

Video reviews

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

9.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
06/05/2021
Hands-on review · temperatures, noise tests and teardown
Verdict
PowerColor Radeon RX 6700 XT runs cool and works well out of the box, though stock is hard to find.
6.0
Gear Seekers
≈ estimated
19/03/2021
Hands-on review · benchmarks, thermals and driver stability
Verdict
PowerColor Radeon RX 6700 XT runs cool and quiet, but Windows driver problems and scarce stock make it hard to recommend yet.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
theoverclockingpage.com
≈ estimated
16/11/2023
Lab test · Compact mid-range card
Verdict
The PowerColor RX 6700 XT Fighter is a cool, quiet compact card that handles 1440p well, but ray tracing and AI tasks expose its limits.
8.0
bit-tech.net
≈ estimated
24/03/2021
Hands-on test · Three-fan cooler
Verdict
The PowerColor Hellhound RX 6700 XT is a sturdy, quiet card that runs at stock clocks and suits buyers who put noise first.
8.0
guru3d.com
≈ estimated
17/03/2021
Lab test · Thermals and noise
Verdict
The PowerColor Hellhound RX 6700 XT is a fairly quiet, cool card that performs at reference level at 1440p, held back by weak ray tracing.
9.0
overclock3d.net
≈ estimated
06/05/2021
Hands-on test · White edition
Verdict
The PowerColor RX 6700 XT Hellhound Spectral White is a cool, low-power white card that runs 1440p well, though it isn't quite a 4K card.
8.0
elchapuzasinformatico.com
≈ estimated
11/05/2021
Review · Quiet 1440p card
Verdict
The PowerColor Radeon RX 6700 XT Hellhound is a quiet, white-styled card for 1440p at 120–144 Hz, but it trails Nvidia in ray tracing.
8.0
tomshw.it
✓ explicit
17/03/2021
Lab test · 1440p gaming card
Verdict
The Radeon RX 6700 XT suits 1440p gaming at high frame rates, but weak ray tracing makes Nvidia the better pick for ray-traced games.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about PowerColor Radeon RX 6700 XT

  • Excellent value for money, especially in the used market as of 2024-2026
  • Strong 1440p gaming performance in titles without ray tracing
  • Generous 12GB of VRAM makes it more future-proof than 8GB competitors
  • Efficient power consumption compared to some higher-end cards
  • Solid 1080p 'beast' that delivers very high refresh rates for competitive esports
  • The Fighter model is compact, making it suitable for smaller PC builds

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

  • Relatively weak ray tracing performance compared to NVIDIA RTX 30-series and 40-series cards
  • PowerColor Fighter and Hellhound models can have noticeable coil whine or fan noise under heavy load
  • Historical issues with AMD driver timeouts reported by some long-term users
  • Higher operating temperatures on some PowerColor models, sometimes requiring aggressive fan curves
  • Performance in productivity and machine learning tasks is significantly behind NVIDIA counterparts
  • Starting to show its age in some 2026-era modern titles at 1440p without upscaling

Verdict

The PowerColor Radeon RX 6700 XT is a mid-range graphics card built on the 7nm RDNA 2 architecture, featuring 2,560 stream processors, 40 Ray Accelerators, and 12GB of GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. Designed for high-performance 1440p gaming, it offers a reference boost clock of up to 2581 MHz (up to 2622 MHz on premium Red Devil models) and utilizes a 96MB AMD Infinity Cache to enhance memory bandwidth efficiency. Key advantages include a generous VRAM capacity compared to similar Nvidia models, excellent energy efficiency, and effective cooling solutions like the triple-fan Red Devil or compact dual-fan Fighter variants. However, notable drawbacks include weaker ray-tracing performance relative to Nvidia rivals and a lack of support for DLSS, relying instead on AMD FSR for upscaling.

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

No results found