KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
After getting our hands on the RX 6800 XT and RX 6800 XT last month, we've had to wait until now to test AMD's newest flagship GPU – the RX 6900 XT. Fundamentally, the 6900 XT is the same GPU as the 6800 XT, but with an extra 8 Compute Units and 512 stream processors, for which UK buyers are asked to pay £899.99.
Touching first on the raw performance of this graphics card, the extra core count means the 6900 XT is, on average, 7% faster than the 6800 XT at 1440p, and 9% faster at 4K. That may not sound like a particularly large improvement, but given the key difference between the two is 11% more cores for the 6900 XT, this matches up. It will also vary game-to-game – in Control, for instance, the 6900 XT is 12% faster at 4K, which was the biggest single difference between the two GPUs across all of our testing.
Compared to the RTX 3080, the 6900 XT is 5% faster at 1440p, and 2% faster on average at 4K, which clearly isn't much of a difference, especially when considering the price tag – but more on that in just a second. The final key comparison is to the RTX 3090, where the 6900 XT is 6% slower at 1440p, and 10% slower at 4K.
In a nutshell – and leaving value to one side for now – from an objective standpoint, it is a very capable graphics card, typically pushing 140-150FPS at 1440p. At 4K, it averaged above 60FPS in all but three of the games we tested.
There is also ray tracing performance to touch on. Here, there is no doubt Nvidia has the upper hand, and by quite a distance. The RTX 3080 can be anywhere from 10-45% faster when ray traced effects are set to their highest levels, with that margin seemingly at its widest when there is more ray tracing to be done. Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with its ray traced shadows, is much less demanding on the GPU, but in Watch Dogs: Legion and Control – the latter of which has a multitude of ray traced elements – the 6900 XT falls further behind. We also can't ignore the fact that Nvidia's RTX GPUs have the option to enable DLSS for a further boost to frame rates, which is a feature AMD currently has no answer to.
I wasn't too critical of the RX 6800 XT for its ray tracing performance, but for a £900 GPU, the RX 6900 XT is not that much faster than the £369 RTX 3060 Ti in ray traced workloads. It is clear to me that anyone who values ray tracing is better off with an Nvidia GPU, it really just depends how much of a priority this is for you.
Discussion also needs to be had around the value of the RX 6900 XT. There is no doubt it offers better value than the RTX 3090 – it may not be quite as fast, especially at 4K, but it is more than 30% cheaper in terms of the cost per frame at both 1440p and 4K resolutions.
The problem I have with that line of thinking is two-fold. First of all, I'm not sure it makes sense to look at the 6900 XT vs RTX 3090 in terms of value, as everything looks like terrific value up against the RTX 3090. For me, the RTX 3090 is very much a GPU for those who want the absolutely fastest thing going, and don't care how much it will cost.
Secondly, if you do choose to look at the relative value of the RX 6900 XT, then you also need to look at the RTX 3080, which itself is 25% cheaper per frame at 1440p and 4K. My opinion is that the vast majority of users looking at the RX 6900 XT would be better served with an RTX 3080, as it is really not much slower at all. As mentioned above, the RX 6900 XT is on average 5% faster at 1440p, and 2% faster at 4K, with the latter result being particularly negligible. But, for that small difference in performance, customers are asked to shell out an extra £250.
One area where the RX 6900 XT may appeal is for 1440p gaming, where relatively speaking, it performs at its best – at that resolution, it is 5% faster than the RTX 3080 and 6% slower than the RTX 3090. So if you were part of what would likely be a very small group of 1440p gamers who want something a little faster than an RTX 3080, who are happy to pay £900 for a GPU (but not £1400 for RTX 3090), then I guess you could make a case for it, but I think that is getting to be a pretty niche audience.
The other argument for the 6900 XT would be if you are a gamer who only plays certain titles where AMD GPUs do particularly well – like Gears 5 or Borderlands 3 for instance, as in those games the 6900 XT can match or even beat the RTX 3090, albeit by very fine margins. Nonetheless, in those use cases the 6900 XT can offer roughly equivalent performance to the RTX 3090 but for significantly less money.
Unfortunately for AMD though, games like that are outliers rather than the norm. The problem remains that, across the board, I don't think the RX 6900 XT is fast enough to justify its asking price, when the RTX 3080 is snapping at its heels (and outpacing it in ray traced workloads) for £250 less cash.
RX 6900 XT has a UK MSRP of £899.99. We expect custom cards to be available in the coming weeks and months at Overclockers UK.
Discuss on our Facebook page HERE.
Pros
- AMD's fastest GPU.
- Better value than RTX 3090.
- Excellent reference card.
- Highly efficient design.
Cons
- Significantly more expensive than RTX 3080 for minimal performance improvements.
- Nvidia offers clearly better ray tracing performance.
- No answer to DLSS.
KitGuru says: You can make a few arguments in favour of the RX 6900 XT, but we feel most gamers would be better served with an RTX 3080.
