AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti are both end-of-life graphics cards, but they represent two distinctly different design philosophies from their respective generations. The data shows a clear overall winner in raw benchmark performance, yet the RX 6800 XT still holds specific advantages in memory capacity and physical footprint that matter for certain builds. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and practical use cases based solely on the provided benchmark database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are decisively in favor of the RTX 4070 Ti. Out of the ten head-to-head tests listed, the NVIDIA card wins all ten. The most significant victory comes in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, where the RTX 4070 Ti scores 5024 against the RX 6800 XT’s 3689, a delta of -26.6% for the AMD card. This is a substantial margin that indicates the RTX 4070 Ti is roughly a quarter faster in this demanding modern DirectX 12 workload.

The Vulkan API test shows an even wider gap. The RTX 4070 Ti scores 213808 compared to the RX 6800 XT’s 136875, a -36% delta. This is the largest relative difference in the entire benchmark suite, suggesting the NVIDIA architecture has a particularly strong advantage in Vulkan-based scenarios. In contrast, the Geekbench OpenCL test is much closer, with the RTX 4070 Ti scoring 176953 against 171304, a slim -3.2% delta. This indicates that in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the two cards perform nearly identically.

Looking at the PassMark suite, the RTX 4070 Ti leads in every category. The PassMark G3D score shows a -21% delta (31624 vs 24980), while the GPU Compute test shows a -28% delta (18396 vs 13245). The DirectX 9 test is particularly lopsided, with the RTX 4070 Ti scoring 352 against 265, a -24.7% delta. Even in the DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 tests, the NVIDIA card maintains a comfortable lead with deltas of -17.1% and -8.3% respectively. The DirectX 12 PassMark test shows a -13.8% delta (116 vs 100), and the 2D graphics test shows a -14.2% delta (1200 vs 1030). The data consistently shows the RTX 4070 Ti outperforming the RX 6800 XT across every benchmark category, with the most pronounced advantages in Vulkan and modern DX12 workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT uses the Navi 21 chip based on RDNA 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It contains 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 51.5M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti uses the AD104 chip based on Ada Lovelace architecture, manufactured on a 5 nm process also at TSMC. It packs 35,800 million transistors onto a much smaller 294 mm² die, resulting in a significantly higher transistor density of 121.8M per mm².

The core configurations differ substantially. The RX 6800 XT has 4608 shading units, 288 TMUs, and 128 ROPs, along with 72 ray tracing cores. The RTX 4070 Ti has more shading units at 7680, but fewer TMUs at 240 and fewer ROPs at 80. It also has 60 ray tracing cores and adds 240 tensor cores, which the AMD card lacks entirely. The clock speeds reflect the architectural differences: the RX 6800 XT has a base clock of 1825 MHz and a boost clock of 2250 MHz, while the RTX 4070 Ti runs higher at 2310 MHz base and 2610 MHz boost.

Memory configurations are a major differentiator. The RX 6800 XT features 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 512.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX 4070 Ti has 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus, with slightly lower bandwidth at 504.2 GB/s. The AMD card’s larger memory pool and wider bus are offset by the NVIDIA card’s faster GDDR6X memory type. The RX 6800 XT’s memory runs at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), while the RTX 4070 Ti’s memory runs at 1313 MHz (21 Gbps effective).

Compute performance numbers show the RTX 4070 Ti’s advantage. It delivers 40.09 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, nearly double the RX 6800 XT’s 20.74 TFLOPS. The FP16 performance is also telling: the RTX 4070 Ti achieves 40.09 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the RX 6800 XT reaches 41.47 TFLOPS but only at a 2:1 ratio. The RTX 4070 Ti also has higher pixel rate (208.8 GPixel/s vs 288.0 GPixel/s) and texture rate (626.4 GTexel/s vs 648.0 GTexel/s), though the differences here are less pronounced.

Power requirements and physical dimensions also differ. The RX 6800 XT has a TDP of 300 W and requires a 700 W power supply, while the RTX 4070 Ti has a lower TDP of 285 W and a 600 W suggested PSU. The AMD card is shorter at 267 mm (10.5 inches) but taller and wider at 120 mm (4.7 inches) and 50 mm (2 inches) respectively. The NVIDIA card is longer at 285 mm (11.2 inches) but slimmer at 112 mm (4.4 inches) and 42 mm (1.7 inches). Both are dual-slot cards, but the RX 6800 XT uses two 8-pin power connectors while the RTX 4070 Ti uses a single 16-pin connector.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 Ti wins in essentially every benchmark category, making it the clear choice for raw performance. Its dominance in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test and the Vulkan benchmark suggests it is better suited for modern gaming titles that leverage these APIs. The RTX 4070 Ti also has a significant advantage in compute workloads, as shown by the PassMark GPU Compute test where it leads by 28%. For users who prioritize maximum frame rates in current and upcoming games, the data points squarely to the RTX 4070 Ti.

The RX 6800 XT’s strengths lie in its memory configuration and physical characteristics. With 16 GB of VRAM compared to 12 GB on the RTX 4070 Ti, the AMD card has more headroom for texture-heavy workloads at high resolutions, though the benchmark data does not directly test this scenario. The RX 6800 XT is also shorter in length, making it easier to fit into smaller cases, though it is taller and wider. Its dual 8-pin power connectors are more universally compatible with existing power supplies, while the RTX 4070 Ti’s 16-pin connector may require an adapter for older PSUs.

The Geekbench OpenCL result shows the RX 6800 XT is not far behind in certain compute tasks, with only a 3.2% delta. This suggests that in OpenCL-specific applications, the two cards are nearly interchangeable. However, this is the only test where the AMD card comes close, and it still loses. The RX 6800 XT also has a higher pixel rate (288.0 GPixel/s vs 208.8 GPixel/s) and texture rate (648.0 GTexel/s vs 626.4 GTexel/s), which theoretically helps in fill-rate-bound scenarios, though the benchmark results do not show this translating into wins.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better overall benchmark performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti wins all ten head-to-head benchmark tests. Its most significant victories are in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (-26.6% delta) and Geekbench Vulkan (-36% delta), while its smallest win is in Geekbench OpenCL (-3.2% delta).

Q: How much VRAM does each card have and what type?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus with 512.0 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti has 12 GB of GDDR6X memory on a 192-bit bus with 504.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The RX 6800 XT has a TDP of 300 W and a suggested PSU of 700 W, using two 8-pin power connectors. The RTX 4070 Ti has a TDP of 285 W and a suggested PSU of 600 W, using a single 16-pin power connector.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti has higher clock speeds with a base clock of 2310 MHz and a boost clock of 2610 MHz. The RX 6800 XT has a base clock of 1825 MHz and a boost clock of 2250 MHz.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both cards support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The RX 6800 XT contains 26,800 million transistors on a 520 mm² die, while the RTX 4070 Ti contains 35,800 million transistors on a smaller 294 mm² die.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti is the superior performer. It wins every single head-to-head test, with its largest advantage coming in Vulkan workloads where it leads by 36%. The RTX 4070 Ti also offers nearly double the FP32 compute performance (40.09 TFLOPS vs 20.74 TFLOPS) and adds 240 tensor cores that the RX 6800 XT lacks entirely. For users who demand the highest possible frame rates in modern games and compute applications, the RTX 4070 Ti is the clear choice.

However, the RX 6800 XT remains a viable option for specific use cases. Its 16 GB of VRAM provides more memory capacity than the RTX 4070 Ti’s 12 GB, which could be beneficial for certain texture-heavy workloads or future game requirements. The AMD card is also shorter at 267 mm, making it easier to fit into compact cases, and its dual 8-pin power connectors are more compatible with older power supplies. The close OpenCL result (3.2% delta) suggests that in OpenCL-specific applications, the performance difference is negligible.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical, with the RX 6800 XT at the 85th percentile and the RTX 4070 Ti at the 84th percentile of all GPUs. The average benchmark scores tell a different story, though: the RX 6800 XT averages 48477 points while the RTX 4070 Ti averages 44795 points, which seems counterintuitive given the head-to-head results. This discrepancy is explained by the nearest rivals data, which shows the RX 6800 XT competing with the RTX 5070 Ti (-3% delta) and the RTX 4070 Ti competing with the RTX 5090 Mobile (-0.8% delta). Ultimately, the RTX 4070 Ti is the better card for raw performance, while the RX 6800 XT offers advantages in memory capacity and physical compatibility.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Ada Lovelace |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 26,800 million | 35,800 million |

| Die Size | 520 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Base Clock | 1825 MHz | 2310 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2250 MHz | 2610 MHz |

| Memory Size | 16 GB | 12 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6X |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 504.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 4608 | 7680 |

| TMUs | 288 | 240 |

| ROPs | 128 | 80 |

| RT Cores | 72 | 60 |

| Tensor Cores | None | 240 |

| FP32 Performance | 20.74 TFLOPS | 40.09 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 41.47 TFLOPS (2:1) | 40.09 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| Pixel Rate | 288.0 GPixel/s | 208.8 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 648.0 GTexel/s | 626.4 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 300 W | 285 W |

| Power Connectors | 2x 8-pin | 1x 16-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 700 W | 600 W |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 285 mm (11.2 inches) |

| Height | 120 mm (4.7 inches) | 112 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Width | 50 mm (2 inches) | 42 mm (1.7 inches) |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Launch MSRP | 649 USD | 799 USD |