AMD Radeon RX 6800 vs AMD Radeon RX 7800M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between the two GPUs, with the AMD Radeon RX 6800 winning 8 of the 10 head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD Radeon RX 7800M takes the remaining 2. The most decisive victory for the RX 6800 comes in PassMark DirectX 9, where it scores 257 against 174 for the RX 7800M, a 47.7% advantage. This is followed by a 29.3% lead in PassMark DirectX 10 (128 vs 99) and a 25.3% margin in PassMark G3D (22067 vs 17613). The RX 6800 also outperforms in PassMark GPU Compute by 16.3% (10864 vs 9342) and in PassMark DirectX 11 by 21.6% (214 vs 176). The gap narrows considerably in PassMark G2D, where the RX 6800 leads by 11% (990 vs 892), and the two cards tie exactly in PassMark DirectX 12, both scoring 89.

In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the RX 6800 scores 3188 versus 2994 for the RX 7800M, a 6.5% lead. However, the RX 7800M shows its strength in compute-oriented workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 7800M scores 120778, which is 79.7% higher than the RX 6800's 24508 — the largest delta in either direction across all tests. The RX 7800M also wins in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 126668 against 115107, a 9.1% advantage. These two wins suggest the RX 7800M has a substantially different compute architecture, even though the RX 6800 dominates in rasterization-focused legacy and DirectX benchmarks.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800 wins 8 of the 10 head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD Radeon RX 7800M wins only 2.

Q: What is the largest performance delta in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest delta is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 7800M scores 120778 versus 24508 for the RX 6800, a 79.7% difference in favor of the RX 7800M.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12?

A: The RX 6800 scores 3188, while the RX 7800M scores 2994, giving the RX 6800 a 6.5% lead in this DirectX 12 workload.

Q: Is there any test where the two GPUs perform identically?

A: Yes, in PassMark DirectX 12, both GPUs score exactly 89, resulting in a 0% delta.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The RX 6800 has an average benchmark score of 30095, while the RX 7800M has an average of 27883. The RX 6800 also holds a higher percentile rank at 75 versus 73 for the RX 7800M.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RX 7800M wins in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 126668 against 115107 for the RX 6800, a 9.1% advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different generations of AMD's RDNA architecture. The RX 6800 uses RDNA 2.0 with the Navi 21 chip, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The RX 7800M is a RDNA 3.0 part with the Navi 32 chip, built on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. This node transition is reflected in the transistor density: the RX 6800 packs 26,800 million transistors across a 520 mm² die, yielding a density of 51.5M per mm², while the RX 7800M contains 28,100 million transistors on a much smaller 346 mm² die, achieving 81.2M per mm². The RX 7800M's higher density is a direct consequence of the smaller process node.

Despite the architectural generation gap, both GPUs share identical core counts in several areas. Each has 3840 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, 96 render output units, and 60 ray tracing cores. Neither GPU features tensor cores. The key architectural difference lies in how the compute units handle FP16 versus FP32. The RX 6800 lists FP16 performance at 32.33 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio relative to its 16.17 TFLOPS FP32 figure. The RX 7800M, conversely, lists FP16 at 35.87 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to its FP32 number of 35.87 TFLOPS. This means the RX 7800M does not double FP16 throughput the way the RX 6800 does, yet it still delivers more than double the FP32 compute of the RX 6800.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The RX 6800 has a base clock of 1700 MHz, a game clock of 1815 MHz, and a boost clock of 2105 MHz. The RX 7800M runs a lower base clock of 1295 MHz but reaches higher game and boost clocks of 2145 MHz and 2335 MHz respectively. The RX 7800M also has a higher pixel rate (224.2 GPixel/s versus 202.1 GPixel/s) and texture rate (560.4 GTexel/s versus 505.2 GTexel/s), consistent with its higher peak clock speeds.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is memory configuration. The RX 6800 carries 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 7800M has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, providing 432.0 GB/s. Memory clock rates differ as well: the RX 6800 runs at 2000 MHz with 16 Gbps effective speed, while the RX 7800M runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective.

Power and physical design contrast sharply. The RX 6800 is a dual-slot card with a 250 W TDP, requiring two 8-pin power connectors and a 600 W suggested PSU. The RX 7800M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a 180 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU listed. The RX 6800 has explicit dimensions of 267 mm length, 120 mm height, and 40 mm width, while the RX 7800M lists no dimensions at all. Display outputs also differ: the RX 6800 offers 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, and 1x USB Type-C, whereas the RX 7800M's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent."

Additional differences appear in production status and release timing. The RX 6800 is end-of-life and was released on 2020-10-27, with a launch MSRP of 579 USD. The RX 7800M is still active in production and was released on 2024-09-10, with no launch MSRP listed. The RX 6800's predecessor is "Navi" and its successor is "Navi III," while the RX 7800M's predecessor is "Polaris Mobile" and it has no listed successor. Both GPUs share the same bus interface (PCIe 4.0 x16), the same DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) support, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. In terms of raw average benchmark score, the RX 6800 leads with 30095 versus 27883 for the RX 7800M, and it also holds a higher percentile rank at 75 compared to 73. The RX 6800's dominance in 8 of 10 head-to-head tests, particularly in legacy DirectX 9/10/11 and G3D, suggests it is the stronger card for traditional rasterization workloads and older API titles. Its 16 GB memory capacity and wider 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth also give it a clear advantage in memory-heavy scenarios.

However, the RX 7800M is not without merit. Its 79.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 9.1% lead in Geekbench Vulkan indicate that it is substantially ahead in compute-oriented tasks that leverage those APIs. Its FP32 throughput of 35.87 TFLOPS is more than double the RX 6800's 16.17 TFLOPS, which explains its compute prowess. The RX 7800M also offers higher pixel and texture rates, along with a lower TDP of 180 W versus 250 W, making it a more power-efficient choice despite being an IGP with no discrete card footprint.

For users prioritizing broad gaming compatibility, high-resolution memory capacity, and legacy DirectX performance, the RX 6800 is the clear pick based on its benchmark wins. For those focused on modern compute APIs like OpenCL and Vulkan, or who require a mobile-integrated form factor with lower power draw, the RX 7800M's two decisive wins and higher FP32 throughput make it the better option. The tie in PassMark DirectX 12 indicates that neither card has a definitive edge in that specific modern API test.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6800 wins in every PassMark category except for the DirectX 12 tie, including DirectX 9 (47.7% ahead), DirectX 10 (29.3% ahead), DirectX 11 (21.6% ahead), G3D (25.3% ahead), GPU Compute (16.3% ahead), and G2D (11% ahead). It also wins in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 by 6.5%. These results point to the RX 6800 as the superior choice for DirectX 9-11 gaming, general 3D rendering as measured by PassMark G3D, and any workload that relies on the PassMark GPU Compute test. Its larger 16 GB memory buffer and 512.0 GB/s bandwidth further support scenarios involving high-resolution textures or large datasets.

The RX 7800M wins decisively in Geekbench OpenCL (79.7% ahead) and Geekbench Vulkan (9.1% ahead). These are the only two tests where it leads, but the OpenCL margin is the largest of any head-to-head result. This makes the RX 7800M the better choice for applications that leverage OpenCL compute, such as certain scientific or productivity workloads, and for Vulkan-based rendering or compute tasks. Its higher FP32 throughput (35.87 TFLOPS versus 16.17 TFLOPS) and higher pixel/texture rates (224.2 GPixel/s and 560.4 GTexel/s) reinforce its compute-oriented strengths. Additionally, its lower 180 W TDP and IGP form factor make it suitable for portable devices where power efficiency and compact integration matter more than raw legacy API performance.