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

XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming review: 117 specs compared

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

XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 6 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming
8.1/10

Overall score

Score
8.1/ 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 75% of models
Score components

40%

8.0

Technical score

25%

8.5

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 75% of graphics cards
7.8

Value for money

Value for money
7.8/ 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 86% of models
Score components

70%

8.1

Overall score

30%

7.1

Price

â–²Better than 86%
8.0

Technical score

Technical score
8.0/ 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 69% of models
Score components

44%

7.8

Performance

24%

8.0

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

5.9

Design

4%

8.3

Connectivity

â–²Better than 69%
8.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.5/ 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
★ Better than 92% of models

80%

8.5

Average grade

20%

8.3

Popularity

Grades by review (6)
3 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 1 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.
★Better than 92%
?

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
  • xfx-radeon-rx-6800-xt-gaming
xfx-radeon-rx-6800-xt-gaming
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 reviewers say about the XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming

Based on 3 · 3

Reviewers praise how quiet and cool it runs, but find it bulky and weak at ray tracing.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming

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 XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming

Technical score
Technical score
8.0/ 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 69% of models
Score components:

44%

7.8

Performance

24%

8.0

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

5.9

Design

4%

8.3

Connectivity

8.0
Reviews score
8.5
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.8/ 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 86% of models
Score components:

70%

8.1

Overall score

30%

7.1

Price

7.8
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
18,698 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 18,698 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is higher than 62.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% 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
24,985 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 24,985 points in PassMark G3D, which is higher than 57.2% 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
What reviewers say
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
1.4
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
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
1.4
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
1.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 1.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 96.5% of graphics cards and equal to 3.6% 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
300 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 300 W under peak load, which is higher than 70.3% of graphics cards and equal to 4.4% 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
270 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 270 W, which is higher than that of 62.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.9% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
300 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
340x 130x 52 mm
Length
340 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 340 mm long, which is longer than 92.7% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.5% 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
1,660 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,660 g, which is heavier than 81.1% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming 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
  • 18.1% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.5/ 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
    ★ Better than 92% of models

    80%

    8.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.3

    Popularity

    Grades by review (6)
    3 reviews: 2 with a printed score, 1 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.
    8.5 vs 7.2
  • 19.2% higher sentiment score
    9.3 vs 7.8
  • 5.5% better value for money
    XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming has better value for money than the average graphics card (7.82 vs 7.4).
    7.82 vs 7.41
  • 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
  • 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
  • 10.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 40% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (7 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    7 nm vs 5 nm
  • 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
  • 57.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (340 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    340 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 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
  • 10.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 3 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2020 vs 2023).
    November 2020
    2020 vs 2023
  • 4.9% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,825 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,825 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 93.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (1.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    1.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 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
  • 22.7% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (270 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    270 W vs 220 W
  • 8 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (75 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    75 °C vs 67 °C
  • 36.4% higher peak power draw
    This graphics card has a higher peak power draw than the average graphics card (300 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    300 W vs 220 W
  • 5 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (42 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    42 °C vs 37 °C
  • 57.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (340 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    340 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
  • 63.7% heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (1,660 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    1,660 g vs 1,014 g

Video reviews

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

8.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
17/12/2020
Hands-on review · thermals, noise and benchmarks
Verdict
XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming is the best air-cooled 6800 XT tested, cool and quiet, but its street price is too high.
9.0
Vortez
≈ estimated
26/11/2020
Hands-on review · 4K benchmarks, temperatures and noise
Verdict
XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming is a strong 4K card that competes well with rivals and is worth a place on any shortlist.
9.5
OC3D TV
≈ estimated
25/11/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks, cooling and noise tests
Verdict
XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming is an outstanding card that performs well, runs quiet and stays cool, though stock is short.
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
pcworld.com
✓ explicit
25/11/2020
Lab test · Custom cooler
Verdict
The XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Merc 319 is a whisper-quiet 4K and 1440p card with 16GB of memory, but it is very large and ray tracing trails GeForce.
10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
18/12/2020
Lab test · Cooler and overclocking
Verdict
The XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Merc 319 is a very quiet, fast 4K card, but it is only about 4% faster than AMD's reference design.
9.0
lanoc.org
≈ estimated
25/11/2020
Benchmark review · Triple-fan cooler
Verdict
The XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Merc 319 has a large triple-fan cooler and 16GB of memory, but at 13.39 inches long it may not fit small cases.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming

  • High-end triple-fan cooling system that remains very quiet even under heavy gaming loads
  • Excellent 1440p and competitive 4K rasterization performance, often matching or beating the RTX 3080
  • Generous 16GB of VRAM provides longevity for texture-heavy modern titles compared to competitors
  • Solid build quality with a premium metal shroud and backplate for added rigidity
  • Significant factory overclock and high ceiling for further manual overclocking
  • Dual BIOS switch allows users to easily toggle between performance (Rage) and quiet modes

What customers don't like about XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming

  • Ray tracing performance is notably weaker than equivalent Nvidia RTX 30-series cards
  • The card is exceptionally large (nearly 340mm) and heavy, which may not fit in smaller cases and might require a support bracket
  • Occasional reports of coil whine, particularly when the GPU is pushed to high utilization levels
  • Lacks a DLSS equivalent (at launch), relying on FSR which some users find less visually polished
  • Early driver stability issues and 'aggressive downclocking' in some lighter titles can cause occasional stuttering

Verdict

The XFX Radeon RX 6800 XT Gaming is a high-performance graphics card built on the RDNA 2 architecture, featuring 4,608 stream processors, 16GB of GDDR6 VRAM on a 256-bit interface, and 128MB of AMD Infinity Cache. Specifically, the Speedster MERC 319 variant boasts a significant factory overclock with a boost clock of up to 2340 MHz (or 2360 MHz in 'Rage' mode), a 300W TDP powered by dual 8-pin connectors, and a massive triple-fan cooling system. Its main advantages include exceptional 4K and 1440p rasterization performance, a robust metal shroud with a dual-BIOS switch for thermal flexibility, and high power efficiency for its class. However, some drawbacks include its massive physical size (340mm length) that requires significant case clearance, lower ray tracing performance compared to NVIDIA's contemporary rivals, and the lack of a DLSS equivalent at launch.

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

No results found