That said, we are only talking about a 3% boost over the RTX 3090 Ti. The Radeon is around 45% cheaper right now though, so that's a win for AMD. When compared to the 6900 XT though we're only looking at a 6% boost, so certainly not worth the premium. I don't think AMD will totally halt RX 6800 sales, but it has always been a GPU that only exists to take care of yields. If a Navi 21 isn't at least 90% functional on the CUs, and fully functional on the cache and memory controllers, it can't be sold as a 6800 XT. I do wonder if some Navi 21 chips end up as RX 6700 / RX 6750 XT, just because there will inevitably be flaws in the Infinity Cache or memory controllers. But perhaps AMD just doesn't bother with such chips. As of January 2022, Radeon Super Resolution is compatible with Radeon RX 5000 series graphics and newer and works with games that support exclusive full-screen mode. AMD Software: Adrenalin Edition 22.1.3 or newer is required. GD-197. This is not a bad result for AMD in terms of value though. The RTX 3080 Ti, for example, might be 11% faster, but it also costs 16% more, while the RTX 3090 Ti costs 82% more for a 28% increase at 4K in this title.

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. 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.AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution is available on select games and requires developer integration. See https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/radeon-software-fidelityfx-super-resolution for a list of supported games. AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution is "game dependent" and is supported on the following AMD products: AMD Radeon™ RX 6000, RX 5000, RX 500, RX Vega Series graphics cards & all AMD Ryzen™ Processors with Radeon™ Graphics, as long as the minimum requirements of the game are met. AMD does not provide technical or warranty support for AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution enablement on other vendors' graphics cards. GD-187. Starting with the 1080p fps average gaming data we see that for low resolution gamers targeting maximum fps – we imagine mostly competitive shooter type gamers – the Radeon RX 6950 XT is about as good as it gets for out of the box performance. 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. We'll set up our cost per frame analysis with the mythical MSRP, just to visualize what would be, even if it's not relevant to the current market. 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.

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.

Language

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. The Radeon GPUs don't fare quite as well in The Outer Worlds as evidenced by these 1080p results. The 6950 XT was only slightly slower than the RTX 3090 Ti, but this is the first sample we have where it wasn't faster at 1080p. We're looking at similar performance between the RTX 3080 Ti, 6900 XT, RTX 3090, 6950 XT and RTX 3090 Ti. This is where FSR would be beneficial for AMD, but Cyberpunk 2077 is the only game with FSR support out of these six. We'll have to wait and see if FSR 2.0 can make bigger inroads, but really AMD simply needs faster hardware to handle 4K with maxed out ray tracing settings in most of these games. Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition was the only game to clear 30 fps, and only barely. And we do want to stress that this is a gamer's graphics card, without a doubt. It does better than every other AMD card on our creative benchmarks, but it still way behind where even the RTX 3060 Ti is across Blender's three benchmark tests. 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.

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. Extreme performance graphics cards tend to be used at higher resolutions, and 4K ultra was the only resolution we tested where the RX 6950 XT couldn't beat the RTX 3090 Ti in standard gaming performance. It does come in second place overall, beating the RTX 3090, which is perhaps one reason why Nvidia released the 3090 Ti at the end of March. Either way, these are likely to be the two fastest cards from their respective companies until the next generation GPUs arrive this fall — and we also don't expect the top Intel Arc Alchemist GPU to be able to match either one in general gaming performance. Starting with Rainbow Six Extraction, we find the 6950 XT to be chart topping at 1080p with 309 fps, a 10% increase over the 6900 XT. That allowed it to budge ahead of the much more expensive RTX 3090 Ti at this lower resolution and it's an 11% boost over the RTX 3080 Ti, a GeForce GPU that's still more expensive than the 6950 XT. 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.The Gigabyte RX 6950 XT Gaming OC card we reviewed is a pretty good looking card that you won't be embarassed to show off in your build, and it sure as hell looks more attractive than the AMD reference card design for the RDNA 2 cards. 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! 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%. 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. 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.

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 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.

It's a bit difficult to go hard after AMD for raising prices in this segment given how much cheaper Radeon GPUs are than their GeForce competitors. Of course, AMD would love you to pay more, but they simply don't have the mindshare to get away with it the same way Nvidia can. In other words, AMD is not intentionally doing gamers a favor, but it works out kind of nice for consumers that don't have eyes only for the green team. 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... FSR support is still rolling out, so you may still need to make adjustments to your settings to hit the top of the parabolic curve where graphics quality and 60 fps line up. As such, it is a great option for gamers out there who can afford a premium card, but aren't actually giant, human-shaped, walking piles of money – it least it would be, if RDNA 3 wasn't right around the corner. AMD's next-gen graphics cards are likely to make some major advances in terms of ray tracing and hardware-assisted upscaling tech that should blow the current generation of AMD cards out of the water, so buying anything premium from this generation right now is iffy at best.