Radeon PRO W7700 vs Pro W6800
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W6800 and Radeon PRO W7700, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
PRO W7700 outperforms Pro W6800 by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 58 | 42 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 28.64 | 82.46 |
| Power efficiency | 14.17 | 21.65 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 21 | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 8 June 2021 (3 years ago) | 13 November 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,249 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
PRO W7700 has 188% better value for money than Pro W6800.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3840 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 2075 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2320 MHz | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 26,800 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 190 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 556.8 | 499.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 17.82 TFLOPS | 31.95 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 96 |
| TMUs | 240 | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 60 | 48 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 241 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 6x mini-DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort 2.1 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 137
−9.5%
| 150−160
+9.5%
|
| 1440p | 116
−12.1%
| 130−140
+12.1%
|
| 4K | 84
−13.1%
| 95−100
+13.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 16.42
−146%
| 6.66
+146%
|
| 1440p | 19.39
−152%
| 7.68
+152%
|
| 4K | 26.77
−155%
| 10.52
+155%
|
- PRO W7700 has 146% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- PRO W7700 has 152% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- PRO W7700 has 155% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
−14.9%
|
300−310
+14.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
−13%
|
130−140
+13%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 110−120
−15%
|
130−140
+15%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
−14.1%
|
170−180
+14.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
−14.9%
|
300−310
+14.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
−13%
|
130−140
+13%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70
−14.3%
|
80−85
+14.3%
|
| Fortnite | 200−210
−11.7%
|
230−240
+11.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
−14.1%
|
210−220
+14.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
−10.3%
|
160−170
+10.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 110−120
−15%
|
130−140
+15%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−15.6%
|
200−210
+15.6%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
−12.8%
|
300−310
+12.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
−14.1%
|
170−180
+14.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
−14.9%
|
300−310
+14.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
−7.9%
|
300−310
+7.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
−13%
|
130−140
+13%
|
| Dota 2 | 99
−11.1%
|
110−120
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65
−15.4%
|
75−80
+15.4%
|
| Fortnite | 200−210
−11.7%
|
230−240
+11.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
−14.1%
|
210−220
+14.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
−10.3%
|
160−170
+10.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 121
−15.7%
|
140−150
+15.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 110−120
−15%
|
130−140
+15%
|
| Metro Exodus | 160
−12.5%
|
180−190
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−15.6%
|
200−210
+15.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 199
−15.6%
|
230−240
+15.6%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
−12.8%
|
300−310
+12.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
−14.1%
|
170−180
+14.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 110−120
−13%
|
130−140
+13%
|
| Dota 2 | 86
−10.5%
|
95−100
+10.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 62
−12.9%
|
70−75
+12.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
−14.1%
|
210−220
+14.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 110−120
−15%
|
130−140
+15%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−15.6%
|
200−210
+15.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 157
−14.6%
|
180−190
+14.6%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
−12.8%
|
300−310
+12.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 200−210
−11.7%
|
230−240
+11.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
−12.8%
|
150−160
+12.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
−3.9%
|
350−400
+3.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 88
−13.6%
|
100−105
+13.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 171
−11.1%
|
190−200
+11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−14.3%
|
200−210
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
−1.4%
|
300−310
+1.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
−10.2%
|
130−140
+10.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
−14.8%
|
70−75
+14.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64
−9.4%
|
70−75
+9.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
−9.6%
|
160−170
+9.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 55−60
−12.1%
|
65−70
+12.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95−100
−13.4%
|
110−120
+13.4%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 130−140
−13.6%
|
150−160
+13.6%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−8.3%
|
65−70
+8.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 125
−12%
|
140−150
+12%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
−12.9%
|
35−40
+12.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
−9.1%
|
60−65
+9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 99
−11.1%
|
110−120
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 280−290
−5.6%
|
300−310
+5.6%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
−13.9%
|
90−95
+13.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
−8.3%
|
65−70
+8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 94
−6.4%
|
100−105
+6.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
−8.3%
|
65−70
+8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−105
−10%
|
110−120
+10%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−35
−12.9%
|
35−40
+12.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
−11.8%
|
85−90
+11.8%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
−10.3%
|
75−80
+10.3%
|
This is how Pro W6800 and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:
- PRO W7700 is 9% faster in 1080p
- PRO W7700 is 12% faster in 1440p
- PRO W7700 is 13% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 44.65 | 51.82 |
| Recency | 8 June 2021 | 13 November 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 190 Watt |
Pro W6800 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
PRO W7700, on the other hand, has a 16.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 40% more advanced lithography process, and 31.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro W6800 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
