Top

AMD Radeon RX 6800 vs 6800 XT: standards compared

AMD Radeon RX 6800 vs 6800 XT: standards compared

AMD Radeon RX 6800 vs 6800 XT: standards compared

AMD’s long-awaited Big Navi GPUs, the Radeon RX 6800 and RX 6800 XT, are finally here. However how do they compare performance-wise and which one should you think about purchasing when they finally return in stock? To help answer that concern, I’ve put together some lovely bar graphs of my 1080 p, 1440 p and 4K benchmark results, showing you exactly how they stack up throughout all the significant resolutions.

Admittedly, both the RX 6800 and RX 6800 XT are offered out practically all over at the minute, making them as difficult to purchase as Nvidia’s similarly new RTX 30 series. I’ll be comparing AMD’s new RX 6000 cards to Nvidia’s RTX 30 series in a separate article, however for now I wished to focus on how AMD’s new cards compare, and whether the ₤620/ $650 RX 6800 XT is really worth all that extra money over the ₤530/ $580 RX 6800.

To check the RX 6800 and RX 6800 XT, I matched them with my normal Intel Core i5-10600 K processor and 16 GB of Corsair Revenge LED RAM, and put them head to head in my suite of graphics standards, taking a typical frame rate from their own built-in standard tools or from my own repeatable manual gameplay tests. The video games consist of a mix of hits from the last couple of years: Shadow Of The Burial Place Raider, Overall War: Three Kingdoms, Final Fantasy XV, Beast Hunter: World, Assassin’s Creed Valhalla, The Witcher 3, City Exodus and Control.

I have actually also used AMD’s variations of the RX 6800 and RX 6800 XT, as these were the cards I utilized for my respective GPU evaluations. I ran both cards at their default clock speeds as well, so the figures listed below must be quite representative of what you’ll discover on other types of RX 6800 and RX 6800 XT cards made by 3rd celebration producers.

AMD Radeon RX 6800 vs 6800 XT: 1080 p benchmarks

Plainly, neither the RX 6800 or RX 6800 are going to struggle playing games at 1920 ×1080 for the foreseeable future, as even the RX 6800 is capable of hitting a minimum of 100 fps on max settings here, while the RX 6800 XT is typically pressing 120 fps. Obviously, that’s barely unexpected provided how costly they are, and in most cases the RX 6800 XT has a decent lead on its non-XT brother or sister.

A bar graph comparing the 1080p performance of AMD's Radeon RX 6800 and RX 6800 XT.

That said, there are a couple of games where the RX 6800 isn’t that far behind the RX 6800 XT. In Last Fantasy XV, I just saw a distinction of around 5fps between each card, for example, and Control was even closer at just 3fps. I think this is likely due to the RX 6800 XT being limited by my CPU in these specific circumstances, as I saw a really similar thing happen with these particular games in my RTX 3060 Ti vs RTX 3070 comparison article.

When you’re handling effective graphics cards like this at 1920 ×1080, any potential bottlenecks are probably going to be connected to your CPU rather than your GPU at this resolution, and it can make an unexpected amount of distinction to your PC’s overall efficiency. You’ll likely see better efficiency from the RX 6800 XT at 1080 p if you match it with a more powerful processor, such as one of Intel’s Core i7s or AMD’s Ryzen 7 chips.

AMD Radeon RX 6800 vs 6800 XT: 1440 p standards

Still, as powerful as today’s graphics cards are, bumping up the resolution to 2560 ×1440 still puts the concern squarely back onto your GPU, making CPU traffic jams a lot more unlikely. AMD’s 2 RX 6000 cards are still highly capable in this department, however, with the RX 6800 striking at last 75-80 fps in today’s big hits, while the RX 6800 XT is striking at least 90 fps.

A bar graph comparing the 1440p performance of AMD's Radeon RX 6800 and RX 6800 XT.

Once Again, there are exceptions to this guideline. Control when again saw a nigh-on similar average frame rate from both cards– although the RX 6800 XT does pull ahead when you turn on the video game’s ray tracing assistance. For the a lot of part, however, there’s a clear space between these two cards, with the RX 6800 XT leading by around 10-15 fps depending on the title.

Obviously, unless you own a high refresh rate screen, opting for the RX 6800 XT won’t get you any advantage at all, as displays with a standard 60 Hz refresh rate will display the exact same 60 fps no matter which card’s within your PC. Indeed, even if you do own a high refresh rate display that exceeds 60 Hz, I’m uncertain I ‘d be able to tell the difference between 80 and 90 fps without the aid of a frame rate counter. I may practically be able to compare 105 fps and close to 130 fps in something like The Witcher III, for example, but 80-90 fps is all much of a muchness to my eyes. As an outcome, it may be worth sticking to the regular RX 6800 if you’re planning to play video games at 1440 p, as I’m not exactly sure you’re really getting one hundred quid’s worth of extra performance here.

AMD Radeon RX 6800 vs 6800 XT: 4K criteria

If you’re intending to play games at 4K, however, then you’re certainly going to get a lot more out of the RX 6800 XT. Admittedly, neither card is truly fit for 60 fps on max settings at this resolution, as you can see from the bar chart below. The RX 6800 XT gives it a pretty good shot, hitting 60 fps in basically everything but two video games on max settings, however there are still cases where it falls down closer to the 40-50 fps mark, such as in Overall War: Three Kingdoms and Beast Hunter: World.

A bar graph comparing the 4K Ultra settings performance of AMD's Radeon RX 6800 and RX 6800 XT graphics cards.

The RX 6800 XT likewise deals with Control on max settings (although offered its max settings are technically called ‘High’, I have actually included them in the chart listed below to avoid confusion). Here, the RX 6800 XT handled approximately just 45 fps, which is still practically playable, but it’s very much on the borderline of what I ‘d call an appropriate frame rate.

In other places on High settings, nevertheless, the RX 6800 XT does put in rather an outstanding efficiency over its non-XT brother or sister. With the exception of Control, the RX 6800 XT delivers speeds well in excess of 60 fps here, once again leading by 10-12 fps over the RX6800 Admittedly, the latter can likewise still just about hit an average of 60 fps in the majority of my criteria video games on High, however there’s no rejecting you’ll get smoother general frame rates by selecting the XT here.

A bar graph comparing the 4K High settings performance of AMD's Radeon RX 6800 and RX 6800 XT graphics cards.

In Assassin’s Creed Valhalla, for example, the RX 6800 struck a low of 42 fps in its integrated standard versus the 6800 XT’s low of 49 fps, while Final Dream XV saw the RX 6800 struck lows of 48 fps, which is practically 10 fps below the RX 6800 XT’s low of 56 fps. As an outcome, the additional horsepower you get with the RX 6800 XT will assist push those minimum frame rates up much closer to a more consistent 60 fps, making it much more likely that you’ll be able to carry on playing video games at this kind of quality setting in the years to come.

Whack the quality down to Medium, nevertheless, and the XT’s efficiency bump begins to end up being less apparent once again. It still has around a 10 fps lead on its non-XT sibling here, often reaching closer to 15-20 fps, but with high refresh rate screens still being relatively scarce at 4K, you’re more likely to strike the 60 fps threshold on both cards here, negating that additional lead provided by the XT.

A bar graph comparing the 4K Medium settings performance of AMD's Radeon RX 6800 and RX 6800 XT graphics cards.

Of course, you might state the very same about the RX 6800 XT’s speeds on High quality settings, and there is some fact because. Nevertheless, as I stated above, if playing games as close to 60 fps is important to you, then the RX 6800 XT is a lot more likely to achieve those sort of frame rates on High than the non-XT variation. On Medium, though, the RX 6800 has more than enough power to hit a constant 60 fps at 4K– although as Control once again shows, there will still be the odd video game out there that taxes both cards similarly, despite quality setting.

AMD Radeon RX 6800 vs 6800 XT: conclusion

In General, then, it’s clear that both the RX 6800 and RX 6800 XT are both incredibly powerful graphics cards, efficient in submitting high refresh rate screens at both 1080 p and 1440 p, and striking consistent 60 fps frame rates on Medium to High settings at 4K. Nevertheless, while the RX 6800 XT is clearly the faster card of the 2, I ‘d probably err on the side of the routine RX 6800 as being the better worth card overall.

Naturally, the RX 6800 XT’s faster frame rates do come in handy when you start tossing ray tracing into the mix, specifically if you want to play video games at 1440 p. The RX 6800 XT, on the other hand, might still struggle to hit 60 fps at 1440 p with maxed out ray tracing, however its smoother 55 fps typical frame rates are still pretty darn close.

A side-on photo of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 graphics card on top of the RX 6800 XT.

The RX 6800 (top) is precisely the exact same size as the RX 6800 XT (listed below), simply a bit thinner.

Nevertheless, this situation will likely change when AMD release their upcoming DLSS competitor tech, FidelityFX Super Resolution– although whether it will be as proficient at increasing each card’s performance as Nvidia’s DLSS tech stays to be seen. As I pointed out right at the top of this short article, I’ll be doing a separate ray tracing comparison piece with all of today’s next-gen graphics cards soon, so watch out for that to get a better idea of how things accumulate.

Needless to say, ray tracing at 4K is practically out of the question on these cards today, but even if you’re simply wanting to buy a 4K card in basic, I ‘d probably still side with the RX 6800 here, if only because once you begin hitting the ₤600/ $650 mark, you may as well select Nvidia’s RTX 3080 rather than AMD’s RX 6800 XT at this resolution. As I stated in my RX 6800 XT evaluation, the RTX 3080 is plainly the remarkable card at 4K, and you can find out more about its 4K performance in my RTX 3080 vs 2080 and 2080 Super comparison post.

In reality, you’re probably likewise better off opting for Nvidia’s RTX 3070 instead of the routine RX 6800 for 4K video gaming as well, as their particular speeds are both much of a muchness. Undoubtedly, up until AMD’s FidelityFX Super Resolution tech comes out, you should not truly be purchasing either RX 6000 card for 4K gaming at the moment, as their raw performance just can’t compete with what you get with Nvidia’s RTX cards with DLSS switched on (although once again I’ll be doing more in-depth criteria contrasts between AMD and Nvidia’s brand-new cards soon).

Ultimately, however, I reckon the RX 6800 is the one to try and leave AMD’s new crop of Huge Navi cards when it eventually returns in stock, specifically if you want a top notch 1440 p GPU. There’s no denying the RX 6800 XT has containers of power at its disposal, but when it concerns overall worth, the routine RX 6800 is difficult to beat.

esctoday
No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.