AMD Radeon™ RX 6950 XT gddr6 Graphics Card

Product Information

We're going to wrap up the individual game data with a look at F1 2021, and of course, we'll start with 1080p. We find another example where the 6950 XT is unable to beat the RTX 3090 series at 1080p, this time trailing the RTX 3090 Ti by an 8% margin, though it was a little faster than the 3080 Ti which is technically a good result. Even at 1440p, the Radeon GPUs maintain a decent performance advantage over GeForce competitors and here the 6950 XT was 12% faster than the RTX 3090 Ti, 21% faster than the RTX 3090 and 23% faster than the RTX 3080 Ti. Those are impressive margins, though it was just 5% faster than the original 6900 XT. Then at 4K the RTX 3090 Ti takes over, beating the 6950 XT by a 7% margin. Still the 6950 XT was just able to edge out the RTX 3090 and 3080 Ti, with a 12% boost over the 6900 XT. Cost Per Frame Finally at 4K the 6950 XT falls further behind the RTX 3080 Ti and trails the RTX 3090 Ti by a 16% margin, and that's despite boosting performance over the original 6900 XT by 13%. Power Consumption Nvidia cards are simply better at ray tracing since their ray tracing cores are just a more mature graphics architecture at this stage than AMD's first generation Ray Accelerators introduced with AMD RDNA 2. The RX 6950 XT's rasterization performance is still just as good or better than the RTX 3080 Ti and RTX 3090's, with the latest AMD card beating even the RTX 3090 Ti in 3DMark's Fire Strike Ultra.

But that's the case even with the RTX 3090 Ti with DLSS on, which only just barely hits 60 fps (ocassionally) in Cyberpunk 2077's benchmark at 4K with the Ultra Ray Tracing graphics preset. And, even then, that's its max frame rate, its average is in the high 40s, while without any upscaling, the RTX 3090 Ti only hits 24 fps on those settings. Interestingly, the 6950 XT is slightly better value than the original model at the MSRP, dropping the cost per frame by about 2%, or essentially they are about the same. The RTX 3090 Ti costs 70% more per frame than the 6950 XT based on the MSRP. Now let's move on to real-world pricing... In this wishful scenario, AMD and Nvidia would have been evenly matched in terms of performance and value. Looking at the Radeon RX 6800 XT and GeForce RTX 3080 10GB, a slight premium for the RTX 3080 can be seen, but that product probably does command a slight premium. As usual, it's 4K that proves to be a challenge for RNDA2 in its battle with Ampere and now it's the RTX 3090 Ti that leads the 6950 XT by an 8% margin. We're looking at a 12% performance boost for the 6950 XT over the 6900 XT, and that was enough to put it just ahead of the RTX 3090 and 3080 Ti.As for the Steam Survey. I mentioned this in the news report where the 6900XT finally appeared in it. I've had it for a good while now and I've never seen the Steam Survey pop. Same with my laptop and its 6800M. I've swapped my CPU 3 times now and I've only been survey'd once; before I even got my Vega64 to replace my RX480. All of this to just point out and reinforce the point that the Steam Survey is weird. Then at 4K the Ampere RTX GPUs take over and even the original 10GB version of the RTX 3080 is faster than the new 6950 XT in this title. So while the Nvidia RTX cards are definitely the reigning champs at ray tracing, in many cases you simply won't be using ray tracing, since even on the top-tier Nvidia GPUs, you're still looking at a 4K slideshow without upscaling tech like DLSS and FSR, and not every game has implemented those technologies yet. In the case of most games you will be playing for the next couple of years, you're much more likely to need to lean on rasterization performance as you always have. Increasing the resolution to 1440p reduces how CPU bound The Outer Worlds testing is and now we're seeing an 8% performance increase from the 6900 XT to the 6950 XT. The RTX 3090 Ti is 10% faster than the 6950 XT, though right now that's a GPU over 80% more expensive. Halo Infinite is rated ESRB "T" for Teen and PEGI 16. May contain content inappropriate for children. Please consult with ESRB.org, PEGI.info, or your regional game rating organisation.

In nearly all of our benchmarks, the RX 6950 XT falls short of the RTX 3090 and Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 Ti, and even the Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080, depending on the test. But where the RX 6950 XT falters, it's not completely bowled over, and its greatest weakness is when ray tracing is being pushed to the max. Moving on to the Shadow of the Tomb Raider, the 6950 XT is able to command top spot at 1080p, delivering 201 fps on average, which is an 8% increase over the 6900 XT. It's also a 5% boost over the RTX 3090 Ti, 12% over the RTX 3090, and 13% over the RTX 3080 Ti.Fran- said:What a terrible model... The Sapphire is way way better, like always. MSI didn't even try to make this card decent; more like just fulfilling commitments or quotas. VforV said:I did not contradict you on the appeal of the RX 6800, I just said you mostly never found this GPU available compared to others and from now on it will be even less available to non-existent... That's all that I said. We're also curious whether AMD will add tensor core-like hardware to RDNA 3 when that arrives, given that Intel has that on Arc, and AMD has similar hardware on its data center MI200 series "Aldebaran" GPU. Intel's XeSS will support the matrix engines on Arc and will use DP4a (INT8) hardware on non-Intel GPUs as far as we're aware, but maybe AMD and Intel could kiss and make up and try to make XeSS a truly open competitor to DLSS. Stranger things have happened! Next we have Watch Dogs: Legion and again the 6950 XT tops the chart at 1080p, averaging 168 fps or 6% faster than the 6900 XT, and a mere 6% faster than what should be the much cheaper 6800 XT, though in reality it isn't. In terms of memory, the VRAM on the RX 6950 XT is also a bit faster at 2,250MHz, compared to the RX 6900 XT's 2,000MHz. With the amount of VRAM and the same 256-bit memory bus, this extra speed might not seem like a lot, but it does mean that the card has almost 13% more memory bandwidth than the RX 6900 XT, 576GB/s to 512GB/s, respectively.

In fact, the RX 6950 XT only starts to beat out Nvidia cards in Blender starting at the RTX 3060, and even then it's just barely in only one of the three tests. Similarly, it's Adobe Premiere performance lags about 50 points behind the RTX 3060, and the RTX 3060 is about a third of the price of the RX 6950 XT. If you're a creative, you have a lot better options out there that will offer you a much better value for the workflows that you need. Chances are you won't really see it though, but that's ok because Gigabyte's Aorus Fusion 2.0 will let you program 16.7 million different color options into the Gigabyte logo along the visible edge, including several different patterns like color wave, color pulse, and more, that adds some additional RGB flair to your build. It's entirely possible that an AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT could have comparable performance to the RX 6950 XT, and it will likely be cheaper, so the potential value of this card is somewhat wasted with so late an entry into the market. Again, it's a shame, because this card has a lot going for it, at least on the gaming front. If you're not a gamer though, there really isn't a whole lot for you here. While the RX 6950 XT is the best AMD graphics card to hit the market, its creative workload performance still lags considerably behind the best Nvidia GeForce graphics cards, and without Tensor cores, the RX 6950 XT simply isn't up for the task of intense machine learning models and other similar research work that makes Nvidia RTX cards so prized.We should note though, there's still some market manipulation going with GPUs when multiple products are sharing the same silicon. As we noted in the cost per frame analysis, the more affordable RX 6800 is meant to cost 21% more than the 6700 XT, while the 6800 XT is meant to cost 35% more. However, the RX 6800 currently costs 55% more, while the 6800 XT costs 76% more. The simple explanation is that the 6800 and 6900 series share the same silicon. Finally at 4K, the 6950 XT is only able to match the RTX 3080 10GB despite offering a 12% boost over the 6900 XT. The RTX 3090 Ti is now 22% faster than the 6950 XT as well. The margins remained the same at 1440p. The 6950 XT edged out the RTX 3090 Ti by a tiny margin and boosted performance over the 6900 XT by 11%. Where the value goes out the window is with the AMD and Nvidia refresh products, and of course, the "halo" products. For rasterization performance, the 6900 XT is much better value than the RTX 3090, saving you around 28% per frame, but for high resolution gaming the RTX 3090 is the faster halo product with better features.