AMD Radeon RX 480 vs AMD Radeon RX 6800M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How large is the performance gap in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores 2238, which is 56.8% higher than the RX 480's 966. The RX 6800M wins this benchmark outright.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RX 480 records an average benchmark score of 33997, placing it in the 78th percentile among all GPUs. The RX 6800M sits at 28874, in the 74th percentile.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The RX 480 uses 5,700 million transistors on a 232 mm² die, while the RX 6800M packs 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU supports hardware ray tracing?

A: The RX 6800M has 40 RT cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The RX 480 has no RT cores and is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: How does the memory configuration differ?

A: The RX 480 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6800M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the effective memory clock speed for each card?

A: Both use a 2000 MHz base memory clock. However, the RX 480 achieves 8 Gbps effective, while the RX 6800M reaches 16 Gbps effective.

Architecture Differences

The RX 480 is built on GCN 4.0 architecture, using the Ellesmere chip fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The RX 6800M moves to RDNA 2.0, built on the Navi 22 chip at TSMC's 7 nm node. This process shrink allows the RX 6800M to pack 17,200 million transistors into a 335 mm² die, compared to the RX 480's 5,700 million transistors on 232 mm². Transistor density jumps from 24.6M per mm² to 51.3M per mm².

The RX 6800M is a mobile part with an IGP slot width and no power connectors, drawing 145 W TDP. The RX 480 is a dual-slot desktop card with a single 6-pin connector and 150 W TDP. The RX 480 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 6800M uses PCIe 4.0 x16.

Shading units increase from 2304 on the RX 480 to 2560 on the RX 6800M. Texture mapping units rise from 144 to 160, and ROPs double from 32 to 64. The RX 6800M adds 40 RT cores, a feature entirely absent from the RX 480.

The RX 480 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The RX 6800M steps up to DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. FP32 performance climbs from 5.834 TFLOPS to 12.24 TFLOPS. FP16 throughput improves from 5.834 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) on the RX 480 to 24.47 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio) on the RX 6800M.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 480 wins on aggregate benchmark average. Its 33997 average score outpaces the RX 6800M's 28874, a difference driven by the RX 480's strong showing in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan relative to its overall profile. In percentile ranking, the RX 480 sits at 78th versus 74th for the RX 6800M.

The RX 6800M dominates every direct head-to-head benchmark. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 2238 against 966, a 56.8% advantage. Geekbench Metal shows 113721 versus 51057, a 55.1% gap. Geekbench OpenCL favors the RX 6800M at 87621 against 37998, a 56.6% margin. Geekbench Vulkan sees 94766 versus 45968, a 51.5% lead.

The RX 480 is a desktop card with fixed display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 6800M is portable-device dependent for outputs, making it suitable for laptops where display routing is handled by the system.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification. The RX 480 uses GCN 4.0 architecture on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, while the RX 6800M uses RDNA 2.0 on TSMC's 7 nm node. Transistor counts stand at 5,700 million versus 17,200 million, with die sizes of 232 mm² and 335 mm² respectively.

Clock speeds favor the RX 6800M: base clock of 2116 MHz versus 1120 MHz, boost of 2390 MHz versus 1266 MHz, and a game clock of 2300 MHz that the RX 480 lacks. Memory type shifts from GDDR5 to GDDR6, with capacity rising from 8 GB to 12 GB. Bus width narrows from 256-bit to 192-bit, yet bandwidth increases from 256.0 GB/s to 384.0 GB/s thanks to the 16 Gbps effective memory rate.

Compute resources scale upward: shading units from 2304 to 2560, TMUs from 144 to 160, ROPs from 32 to 64. The RX 6800M adds 40 RT cores. Pixel rate jumps from 40.51 GPixel/s to 153.0 GPixel/s. Texture rate climbs from 182.3 GTexel/s to 382.4 GTexel/s.

Power and physical design contrast sharply. The RX 480 is a 150 W dual-slot card with a 6-pin connector and 450 W suggested PSU. The RX 6800M is a 145 W IGP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The RX 480 measures 240 mm in length, 95 mm in height, and 35 mm in width. The RX 6800M has no recorded dimensions.

DirectX support differs: 12 (12_0) for the RX 480, 12 Ultimate (12_2) for the RX 6800M. Vulkan versions differ at 1.3 versus 1.4. The RX 480 has a launch MSRP of 229 USD; the RX 6800M has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

All four recorded head-to-head benchmarks favor the RX 6800M, with margins ranging from 51.5% to 56.8%. The largest gap appears in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, where the RX 6800M scores 2238 against the RX 480's 966. This 56.8% delta reflects the architectural leap from GCN 4.0 to RDNA 2.0, especially in modern DX12 workloads.

Geekbench OpenCL shows a nearly identical pattern: 87621 for the RX 6800M versus 37998 for the RX 480, a 56.6% difference. Metal performance trails slightly behind at 113721 versus 51057, a 55.1% gap. Vulkan narrows the margin to 51.5%, with 94766 against 45968.

Despite the RX 6800M's clean sweep in direct comparisons, the RX 480 posts a higher average benchmark score overall. This discrepancy stems from the RX 480's benchmark suite including only four tests, all of which are compute-oriented Geekbench and 3DMark entries. The RX 6800M's suite adds seven PassMark tests spanning DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute, which drag its aggregate average downward.

The RX 6800M's nearest rivals in the database include the RX 570 at 0.4% higher, the RX 470 at 0.4% lower, the R9 M295X at 1% higher, and the Intel Arc A370M at 1% lower. The RX 480's nearest rivals are the HD 7950 at 0.1% higher, the RX 560 XT at 0.4% lower, the RX 7700S at 0.4% higher, and the RTX A2000 12 GB at 0.5% lower.

The data shows a clear generational split. The RX 480 holds its own in aggregate scoring due to its focused benchmark set, but the RX 6800M wins every direct comparison by wide margins. The RX 6800M's 40 RT cores and 12.24 TFLOPS FP32 throughput position it for modern workloads, while the RX 480's 5.834 TFLOPS and lack of RT support place it firmly in the older DirectX 12 era.