AMD Radeon RX 480 vs AMD Radeon RX 6800 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear generational divide between the AMD Radeon RX 480 and the AMD Radeon RX 6800. Across the four recorded tests, the RX 6800 claims three decisive victories, while the RX 480 manages a single, notable win in one compute-oriented workload.

The largest margin of victory appears in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. The RX 480 records a score of 966, while the RX 6800 reaches 3188. This translates to a 69.7% advantage for the RX 6800, the widest gap observed in any test. Such a result indicates that the newer architecture scales dramatically better under modern DirectX 12 rendering loads, likely due to its substantially higher shading unit count and texture throughput.

The Geekbench Metal test shows a similar pattern. The RX 480 scores 51057, while the RX 6800 scores 153635, a difference of 66.8% in favor of the RX 6800. This Apple-ecosystem compute benchmark rewards the RX 6800's larger execution resource pool. The RX 480, built on GCN 4.0, simply cannot match the raw parallel compute capacity of the RDNA 2.0 part.

Vulkan performance follows the same trajectory. The RX 480 posts 45968 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the RX 6800 delivers 115107. The RX 6800 leads by 60.1%, confirming that the architectural improvements extend to low-level, cross-platform graphics APIs. The RX 480's GCN design, while capable in its era, is outclassed by the RX 6800's modern execution units and higher clock speeds.

The single counter-example is Geekbench OpenCL. Here, the RX 480 scores 37998, beating the RX 6800's 24508 by 55%. This is a striking inversion. The RX 6800's OpenCL result is anomalous relative to its other compute scores, suggesting either driver-level inefficiencies in this particular workload or a fundamental difference in how the two architectures handle the OpenCL command stream. The RX 480's GCN architecture was heavily optimized for compute workloads, and that legacy remains visible in this specific test. However, it is important to note that this is one test out of four, and the overall benchmark average still favors the RX 6800.

Looking at average scores, the RX 480 holds an average benchmark score of 33997 across its recorded tests, while the RX 6800 averages 30095. This apparent contradiction, where the RX 6800 wins three head-to-head tests but has a lower average, stems from the different test sets each card was subjected to. The RX 6800's average includes additional PassMark tests (DirectX 9, DirectX 10, DirectX 11, DirectX 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute) that drag its mean down. The RX 480's average is computed only from the four tests listed above. When comparing only the overlapping tests, the RX 6800 is clearly dominant.

The RX 480's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 7950, sits within 0.1% of its average score, showing that the RX 480 represents a modest evolutionary step over older GCN parts. The RX 6800, by contrast, sits within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti and 1% of the RTX 2080 Ti, placing it firmly in high-end territory. The RX 480's percentile rank among all GPUs is 78, while the RX 6800 ranks at 75, a counterintuitive result driven by the different benchmark sets. Neither card is near the top of the database, but the RX 6800's raw scores in modern tests are far more competitive.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800 wins three of the four recorded head-to-head tests: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench Metal, and Geekbench Vulkan. The RX 480 wins only Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest gap is in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where the RX 6800 leads by 69.7%. The RX 480 scores 966 versus the RX 6800's 3188.

Q: How does the RX 480 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 480's average benchmark score of 33997 is 0.1% above the AMD Radeon HD 7950, 0.4% above the AMD Radeon RX 7700S, 0.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 560 XT, and 0.5% below the NVIDIA RTX A2000 12 GB.

Q: How does the RX 6800 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The RX 6800's average benchmark score of 30095 is 0.5% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti, 0.6% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Mobile, 1% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, and 1.1% below the AMD Radeon RX 6700.

Q: Is the RX 480 ever faster than the RX 6800?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 480 scores 37998 versus the RX 6800's 24508, a 55% advantage. This is the only test where the RX 480 wins.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 480 has 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The RX 6800 has 512.0 GB/s from 16 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus, exactly double the bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 is the clear choice for modern gaming and general compute workloads. Its 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result, 69.7% ahead of the RX 480, demonstrates that it handles contemporary DirectX 12 titles with far greater ease. The Geekbench Vulkan advantage of 60.1% reinforces this, as Vulkan is increasingly used in mainstream game engines. For anyone running recent AAA games, ray tracing workloads, or high-resolution rendering, the RX 6800 is the only viable option between the two. Its higher pixel rate of 202.1 GPixel/s versus 40.51 GPixel/s and texture rate of 505.2 GTexel/s versus 182.3 GTexel/s provide the raw fill-rate headroom that modern games demand. The RX 6800 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 480 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0), meaning the newer card can access features like hardware ray tracing and mesh shaders.

The RX 480's single win in Geekbench OpenCL is noteworthy for a narrow slice of compute-oriented users. The 55% advantage suggests that certain OpenCL applications, particularly those tuned for GCN-style architectures, may still run acceptably on the older card. However, this is a niche scenario. The RX 480's 5.834 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 5.834 TFLOPS of FP16 (1:1 ratio) are far below the RX 6800's 16.17 TFLOPS FP32 and 32.33 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1 ratio). The RX 480 also lacks dedicated ray tracing cores, which is a significant drawback for any workload or game that leverages DirectX 12 Ultimate features.

For users on a legacy system, the RX 480 has advantages in physical compatibility. It is 240 mm long versus 267 mm for the RX 6800, and it draws 150 W versus 250 W, requiring only a single 6-pin power connector and a 450 W power supply. The RX 6800 needs two 8-pin connectors and a 600 W power supply. The RX 480 also uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which is compatible with older motherboards, while the RX 6800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16, which will still work in PCIe 3.0 slots but may not achieve full bandwidth. Still, from a pure performance standpoint, the RX 6800 wins in every modern rendering scenario, and the RX 480's relevance is limited to legacy OpenCL applications or systems with strict power and space constraints.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The RX 480 uses the Ellesmere chip with 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, while the RX 6800 uses Navi 21 with 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die. Transistor density nearly doubles from 24.6M per mm² to 51.5M per mm². Shading units increase from 2304 to 3840, TMUs from 144 to 240, and ROPs from 32 to 96. The RX 6800 adds 60 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the RX 480.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The RX 480 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6800 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on the same 256-bit bus but with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth, a full doubling. Clock speeds also differ: the RX 480 runs at 1120 MHz base and 1266 MHz boost, while the RX 6800 runs at 1700 MHz base and 2105 MHz boost, with a game clock of 1815 MHz. Memory clocks are 2000 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the RX 480 versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) for the RX 6800.

The RX 480 has a pixel rate of 40.51 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 182.3 GTexel/s, against the RX 6800's 202.1 GPixel/s and 505.2 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 5.834 TFLOPS for the RX 480 and 16.17 TFLOPS for the RX 6800. FP16 performance is 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1) for the RX 480 and 32.33 TFLOPS (2:1) for the RX 6800. Power draw rises from 150 W to 250 W. The RX 480 is 240 mm long, 95 mm high, and 35 mm wide; the RX 6800 is 267 mm long, 120 mm high, and 40 mm wide. Display outputs differ: the RX 480 has 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RX 6800 has 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C. The RX 480 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, the RX 6800 uses PCIe 4.0 x16. The RX 480 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the RX 6800 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 480 launched at an MSRP of 229 USD, the RX 6800 at 579 USD.

Architecture Differences

The most fundamental difference is the architecture generation. The RX 480 is built on GCN 4.0, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The RX 6800 uses RDNA 2.0, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The 7 nm node allows for significantly higher transistor density, enabling the RX 6800 to pack 26,800 million transistors into 520 mm², versus 5,700 million in 232 mm² for the RX 480. This density increase is the primary driver of the RX 6800's higher clock speeds and larger execution resource pool.

GCN 4.0 was designed with compute-heavy workloads in mind, which explains the RX 480's strong OpenCL showing. However, its scalar units and memory hierarchy are less efficient for modern graphics rendering. RDNA 2.0 introduced a redesigned compute unit layout, a new cache hierarchy, and dedicated ray tracing hardware. The RX 6800's 60 ray tracing cores are a categorical advantage, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing that the RX 480 cannot perform. RDNA 2.0 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which includes features like variable rate shading and mesh shaders, both absent on the RX 480.

The FP16 throughput difference highlights another architectural shift. The RX 480 processes FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning no dedicated half-precision acceleration. The RX 6800 processes FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, effectively doubling the rate, which benefits compute workloads that use half-precision arithmetic. The RX 6800's memory subsystem also benefits from GDDR6, which doubles the effective data rate to 16 Gbps, directly doubling bandwidth to 512.0 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage is critical for 4K textures, ray tracing data structures, and high-resolution rendering.

The bus interface difference, PCIe 3.0 versus PCIe 4.0, matters for data transfer between the CPU and GPU, though the practical impact on gaming is modest. The RX 6800's larger physical footprint, 267 mm versus 240 mm, and higher power draw of 250 W versus 150 W, reflect the additional hardware. The RX 480's 14 nm process requires more power per transistor, but its smaller chip and lower clock speeds keep total power in check. The RX 6800's 7 nm process allows higher clocks at manageable power, with a boost clock of 2105 MHz versus 1266 MHz for the RX 480. These architectural differences collectively explain the RX 6800's dominance in modern benchmarks, while the RX 480's GCN heritage remains visible only in the OpenCL test where it still leads.