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

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6700 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£390VRAM:10 GBMemory bus width:160 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):175 W

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6700 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.

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6700
6.7/10

Overall score

Score
6.7/ 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–¼ Worse than 77% of models
Score components

40%

6.4

Technical score

25%

6.4

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

6.4

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 77% of graphics cards
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

â–¼Worse than 68%
6.4

Technical score

Technical score
6.4/ 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 63% of models
Score components

44%

5.6

Performance

24%

4.9

Memory

12%

8.2

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 63%
6.4

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.4/ 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 77% of models

6.4

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

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 77%
?

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
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6700
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6700
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6700
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6700
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6700
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-6700
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 Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6700

Based on 201 owners sharing their experience in online comments

72%positive15%mixed13%negative

Owners praise its strong value and gaming performance, though heat and occasional frame-rate problems frustrate some.

What owners dislike

  • Owners report hot spot or junction temperatures often reaching 90–105°C under load, even when the core stays around 70°C.19
  • Some owners find frame rates lower than expected, especially in demanding titles, and some compare it unfavorably with the 6700 XT.17
  • Owners report stuttering and frame drops in some games, especially at higher settings, and some found fixes in BIOS or SAM settings.13
  • Owners report driver crashes, timeout errors and overclock settings not saving, and some say removing MSI Afterburner fixed the problem.6

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6700

Technical score
Technical score
6.4/ 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 63% of models
Score components:

44%

5.6

Performance

24%

4.9

Memory

12%

8.2

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

6.4
Reviews score
6.4
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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–¼ Worse than 68% of models
Score components:

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

8.5

Price

7.2
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
11,166 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 11,166 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 65.8% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
6,412 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 6,412 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 63.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
18,930 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 18,930 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 64% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
8,226 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 8,226 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 69.9% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
11.29 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 11.29 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 72% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
10 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 10 GB of VRAM, which is less than 55.5% of graphics cards and equal to 1.3% 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
160 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 160 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
320 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 320 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 66.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
16,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 16,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 63.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
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)
175 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 175 W, which is lower than that of 62.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
220 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 220 W under peak load, which is lower than 47.8% of graphics cards and equal to 3.6% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
550 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 550 W PSU, which is lower than that of 61.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 13.3% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
175 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 175 W, which is lower than that of 66.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
175 W
Show more
Size
260x 119.85x 49 mm
Length
260 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 260 mm long, which is shorter than 65.1% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.6% of graphics cards.
Height
119.8 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 119.8 mm tall, which is shorter than 64.8% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2.2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2.2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 50.9% of graphics cards and equal in width to 1.1% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,040 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,040 g, which is heavier than 51.4% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.4% of Graphics cards.
Show more

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6700 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 20x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (80 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    80 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
  • 15.4% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (550 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    550 W vs 650 W
  • 18.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (175 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    175 W vs 215 W
  • 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
  • 9 °C lower idle temperature
    This graphics card has a lower idle temperature than the average graphics card (28 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    28 °C vs 37 °C
  • 22.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (260 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    260 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 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
  • 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
  • 20x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (80 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    80 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
  • 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
  • 15.4% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (550 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    550 W vs 650 W
  • 18.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (175 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    175 W vs 215 W
  • 9 °C lower idle temperature
    This graphics card has a lower idle temperature than the average graphics card (28 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    28 °C vs 37 °C
  • 22.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (260 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    260 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 5.2 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (119.8 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    119.8 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.3 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2.2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2.2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 40% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (7 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    7 nm vs 5 nm
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
  • 11.1% lower review score
    Reviews score
    6.4/ 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 77% of models

    6.4

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    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.
    6.4 vs 7.2
  • 17.9% lower sentiment score
    6.4 vs 7.8
  • 2.8% worse value for money
    Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6700 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (7.21 vs 7.4).
    7.21 vs 7.41
  • 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
  • 50% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (11.3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    11.29 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 40 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (144 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    144 vs 184
  • 4 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (36 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    36 vs 40
  • 4 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (36 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    36 vs 40
  • 24.4% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (11,166 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    11,166 points vs 14,779 points
  • 16.4% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (18,930 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    18,930 points vs 22,638 points
  • 1 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2022 vs 2023).
    June 2022
    2022 vs 2023
  • 29.9% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (6,412 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    6,412 points vs 9,148 points
  • 0.4% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,495 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,495 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 4.9% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (359.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    359.3 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 28.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (320 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    320 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 2 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (10 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    10 GB vs 12 GB
  • 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
  • 32 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (160 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    160 bit vs 192 bit
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • 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 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

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

8.0
Tim and Tech [TheGnaaHD]
≈ estimated
01/05/2023
Hands-on review · benchmarks, cooling, power and value
Verdict
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6700 is a very good custom card, but its price is too high right now and a cheaper rival is the better pick.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6700

  • Excellent 1080p and solid 1440p rasterization performance for the price
  • High power efficiency with typical draw between 120W and 140W
  • Effective Dual-X cooling system that remains quiet and cool under load
  • Compact dual-fan design that fits easily in smaller PC cases
  • Reliable driver stability and a strong brand reputation for longevity
  • Competitive value compared to the RX 6650 XT and RTX 3060

What customers don't like about Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6700

  • Noticeably weak performance in games utilizing ray tracing
  • Insufficient power for consistent 4K ultra-resolution gaming
  • Lack of a dual-BIOS feature, which is a common cost-cutting measure for this model
  • Narrower 160-bit memory bus compared to the XT version
  • Some reports of audible coil whine when the card is under heavy stress

Verdict

The Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6700 is a mid-range graphics card built on the RDNA 2 architecture, featuring 2304 stream processors, 36 ray accelerators, and a boost clock speed of up to 2495 MHz. It is equipped with 10GB of GDDR6 memory on a 160-bit interface and 80MB of AMD Infinity Cache, making it an efficient choice for high-refresh 1080p or solid 1440p gaming. Its main pros include excellent power efficiency with a 220W TBP, quiet operation via Dual-X Cooling technology, and a compact 2.2-slot design that fits most builds. However, its main cons are relatively weak ray tracing performance compared to NVIDIA competitors and the lack of any RGB lighting for users prioritizing aesthetics.

Compare Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6700 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 Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 6700 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found