AMD Radeon RX 6700 vs AMD Radeon RX 7800M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6700 and AMD Radeon RX 7800M represent two distinct generations of AMD graphics technology, and the benchmark data reveals a clear split: the newer RX 7800M dominates modern API workloads and compute, while the older RX 6700 holds surprising leads in legacy DirectX tests and overall rasterization in one key metric. The RX 7800M wins 6 of 10 head-to-head benchmarks, but the RX 6700's victories are decisive in their categories, showing that generational advantage does not translate uniformly across all workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RX 7800M's most commanding victories come in modern graphics APIs. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RX 7800M scores 2994 against the RX 6700's 2014, a 32.7% advantage. This is the single largest performance gap between the two cards in any test, and it underscores the architectural leap of RDNA 3.0 in DirectX 12 Ultimate workloads. The Geekbench Vulkan result tells a similar story: the RX 7800M posts 126668 versus 83974 for the RX 6700, a 33.7% delta. This near-identical percentage margin suggests that the RX 7800M's advantage in modern low-level APIs is consistent and substantial.

Compute performance also favors the newer card. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7800M scores 120778 compared to 97841 for the RX 6700, a 19% lead. The PassMark GPU Compute test reinforces this trend, with the RX 7800M achieving 9342 versus 8240, an 11.8% advantage. The RX 7800M's FP32 throughput of 35.87 TFLOPS versus the RX 6700's 11.29 TFLOPS explains this compute dominance, though the benchmark deltas are smaller than the raw spec gap would suggest, indicating real-world scaling limitations.

The RX 7800M also wins in DirectX 11 and DirectX 12 legacy tests, though by smaller margins. PassMark DirectX 11 sees the RX 7800M at 176 against 166 for the RX 6700, a 5.7% lead. PassMark DirectX 12 shows 89 versus 71, a 20.2% advantage. These wins, combined with the modern API results, paint a picture of a card that is broadly superior in contemporary gaming scenarios.

However, the RX 6700 fights back hard in older DirectX workloads. The most dramatic reversal comes in PassMark DirectX 9, where the RX 6700 scores 250 against 174 for the RX 7800M, a massive 43.7% advantage. This is the largest delta in either direction across all tests. The RX 6700 also wins PassMark DirectX 10 with 115 versus 99, a 16.2% margin. These results suggest that RDNA 2.0 retains better optimization for legacy rendering paths, possibly due to driver maturity or architectural compatibility with older shader models.

In overall rasterization, the RX 6700 edges out the RX 7800M in PassMark G3D with 18931 versus 17613, a 7.5% win. This is notable because it contradicts the modern API results, indicating that the PassMark G3D suite may weight older workloads more heavily. The RX 6700 also wins PassMark G2D with 936 versus 892, a 4.9% margin, though this test measures 2D performance which is less relevant for gaming. The final score tally shows the RX 7800M winning 6 benchmarks to the RX 6700's 4, with the RX 7800M's wins being more concentrated in modern and compute-heavy tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations and process nodes. The RX 6700 uses the Navi 22 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture at TSMC's 7 nm process, featuring 17,200 million transistors on a 335 mm² die. The RX 7800M uses the Navi 32 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture at TSMC's 5 nm process, packing 28,100 million transistors on a 346 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story of the node shrink: the RX 7800M achieves 81.2M transistors per mm² versus 51.3M for the RX 6700, representing a 58% improvement in density.

The RX 7800M's compute resources are substantially larger. It features 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 96 ROPs, compared to 2304 shading units, 144 TMUs, and 64 ROPs on the RX 6700. Ray tracing hardware also scales up: the RX 7800M has 60 RT cores versus 36 on the RX 6700. This 67% increase in RT cores aligns with the RX 7800M's 75% increase in shading units, suggesting a balanced architectural scaling.

Memory configuration differs significantly. The RX 6700 uses 10 GB of GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus, delivering 320.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 7800M uses 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 7800M's memory runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) compared to 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) on the RX 6700, contributing to its 35% bandwidth advantage.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The RX 6700 has higher base and boost clocks at 1941 MHz and 2450 MHz respectively, while the RX 7800M runs at 1295 MHz base and 2335 MHz boost. The RX 6700's boost clock is 115 MHz higher, yet the RX 7800M still achieves higher performance due to its larger execution units. The game clocks are closer: 2174 MHz for the RX 6700 versus 2145 MHz for the RX 7800M.

The RX 7800M is designed for mobile integration with an IGP slot width and no power connectors, while the RX 6700 is a dual-slot desktop card requiring a single 8-pin connector. The RX 7800M has a TDP of 180 W versus 175 W for the RX 6700, a negligible difference. The RX 6700 offers dedicated display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the RX 7800M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." Both support PCIe 4.0 x16, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates the RX 7800M is the superior modern GPU. Its 32.7% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 33.7% lead in Geekbench Vulkan are decisive for contemporary gaming, and its 19% OpenCL and 11.8% compute wins cover productivity workloads. The RX 6700's wins are confined to legacy APIs (DirectX 9 and 10) and 2D tasks, which have diminishing relevance for current software.

The RX 7800M's 75th percentile ranking versus the RX 6700's 73rd percentile appears counterintuitive given the benchmark wins, but this reflects different competitive landscapes: the RX 6700's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (1.6% slower average) and AMD Radeon RX 6800 (1.1% faster), while the RX 7800M competes against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (0.5% slower) and AMD Radeon Pro W5500X (0.3% slower). The RX 6700 sits in a more competitive performance bracket, while the RX 7800M's mobile form factor places it against older desktop parts.

For gamers prioritizing modern titles with DirectX 12 or Vulkan, the RX 7800M is the clear choice. Its 35% bandwidth advantage and 3.2x FP32 throughput translate directly into the benchmarks that matter most for current and future games. For users running legacy applications or those who need a desktop card with standard display outputs, the RX 6700 offers specific advantages that the data supports.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RX 7800M uses a newer 5 nm process versus 7 nm, has 28,100 million transistors versus 17,200 million, and a larger 346 mm² die versus 335 mm². The RX 7800M features 3840 shading units versus 2304, 240 TMUs versus 144, 96 ROPs versus 64, and 60 RT cores versus 36. Memory differs with 12 GB versus 10 GB, 192-bit versus 160-bit bus, and 432.0 GB/s versus 320.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Clock speeds favor the RX 6700: 1941 MHz base versus 1295 MHz, 2450 MHz boost versus 2335 MHz, and 2174 MHz game versus 2145 MHz. The RX 7800M has higher memory clock at 2250 MHz versus 2000 MHz. Pixel rate is 224.2 GPixel/s for the RX 7800M versus 156.8 GPixel/s for the RX 6700. Texture rate is 560.4 GTexel/s versus 352.8 GTexel/s. FP32 is 35.87 TFLOPS versus 11.29 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 35.87 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 22.58 TFLOPS (2:1).

TDP is nearly identical at 180 W versus 175 W. The RX 6700 uses a dual-slot design with 1x 8-pin power and 450 W suggested PSU, while the RX 7800M is an IGP with no connectors and no suggested PSU. The RX 6700 has standard display outputs while the RX 7800M is portable-device-dependent. The RX 6700 is end-of-life with a 2021 release date, while the RX 7800M is active with a 2024 release date. The RX 6700's predecessor is Navi and successor is Navi III, while the RX 7800M's predecessor is Polaris Mobile with no successor listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in DirectX 12 performance?

A: The RX 7800M wins decisively. In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, it scores 2994 against 2014 for the RX 6700, a 32.7% advantage. In PassMark DirectX 12, it wins 89 versus 71, a 20.2% margin.

Q: How does the RX 6700 manage to win in DirectX 9?

A: The RX 6700 scores 250 in PassMark DirectX 9 versus 174 for the RX 7800M, a 43.7% advantage. This is the largest delta in any benchmark between the two cards, suggesting superior optimization for legacy rendering paths on RDNA 2.0.

Q: What is the compute performance difference?

A: The RX 7800M leads in both compute benchmarks. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 120778 versus 97841, a 19% advantage. In PassMark GPU Compute, it wins 9342 versus 8240, an 11.8% margin.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The RX 7800M has 432.0 GB/s bandwidth from its 12 GB GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, compared to 320.0 GB/s for the RX 6700's 10 GB GDDR6 on a 160-bit bus. This is a 35% bandwidth advantage.

Q: Are these cards in the same performance tier?

A: No. The RX 6700 ranks at the 75th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 30433, while the RX 7800M ranks at the 73rd percentile with an average score of 27883. However, the RX 6700's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (1.6% slower) and AMD Radeon RX 6800 (1.1% faster), while the RX 7800M's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (0.2% faster) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (0.5% slower).

Q: What is the FP32 compute capability of each card?

A: The RX 7800M delivers 35.87 TFLOPS FP32, while the RX 6700 delivers 11.29 TFLOPS. This represents a 3.2x raw compute advantage for the RX 7800M, though benchmark deltas are smaller.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon RX 7800M — Modern Gaming and Compute: The RX 7800M is the clear winner for DirectX 12 and Vulkan titles. Its 32.7% lead in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and 33.7% lead in Geekbench Vulkan make it the superior choice for current-generation games. Its 19% OpenCL and 11.8% compute advantages also cover content creation and productivity workloads. The 12 GB memory capacity and 432.0 GB/s bandwidth provide more headroom for high-resolution textures and future game requirements. The 60 RT cores versus 36 suggest better ray tracing performance, and the 35.87 TFLOPS FP32 throughput offers substantial compute headroom.

AMD Radeon RX 6700 — Legacy Applications and Desktop Integration: The RX 6700 wins in DirectX 9 by 43.7% and DirectX 10 by 16.2%, making it the better choice for older games and applications that rely on these APIs. Its 7.5% lead in PassMark G3D suggests stronger overall rasterization in mixed workloads. The RX 6700 is a dual-slot desktop card with standard display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a), making it directly usable in desktop systems without adapter considerations. Its higher boost clock of 2450 MHz versus 2335 MHz may provide an edge in lightly-threaded or clock-sensitive scenarios. The RX 6700 also wins PassMark G2D by 4.9%, covering 2D desktop and productivity tasks.

Performance Tier Context: The RX 6700's average benchmark score of 30433 places it in a competitive bracket alongside the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti (1.6% slower) and AMD Radeon RX 6800 (1.1% faster). The RX 7800M's average score of 27883 places it near the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 20 (0.2% faster) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti (0.5% faster). This means the RX 6700 competes with faster desktop parts on average, while the RX 7800M's mobile positioning puts it against older desktop hardware despite its modern architecture advantages.