ATI Radeon X1600 vs RX 6900 XT

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 6900 XT and Radeon X1600, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX 6900 XT
2020
16 GB GDDR6, 300 Watt
69.37
+53262%

RX 6900 XT outperforms ATI X1600 by a whopping 53262% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking251446
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation30.00no data
Power efficiency15.910.33
ArchitectureRDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)Ultra-Threaded SE (2005−2007)
GPU code nameNavi 21RV516
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date28 October 2020 (4 years ago)2007 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores5120no data
Core clock speed1825 MHz635 MHz
Boost clock speed2250 MHzno data
Number of transistors26,800 million105 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)300 Watt27 Watt
Texture fill rate720.02.540
Floating-point processing power23.04 TFLOPSno data
ROPs1284
TMUs3204
Ray Tracing Cores80no data

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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width3-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6DDR2
Maximum RAM amount16 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2000 MHz800 MBps
Memory bandwidth512.0 GB/s12.8 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 Connectors1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C2x DVI, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.53.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL2.1N/A
Vulkan1.2N/A

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.

RX 6900 XT 69.37
+53262%
ATI X1600 0.13

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.

RX 6900 XT 26728
+54447%
ATI X1600 49

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 HD194-0−1
1440p135-0−1
4K86-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.15no data
1440p7.40no data
4K11.62no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 190−200 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 160−170 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 190−200 0−1
Battlefield 5 195 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 160−170 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 0−1
Far Cry 5 170−180 0−1
Fortnite 300−350 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 283 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 180−190 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
Valorant 350−400 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 190−200 0−1
Battlefield 5 196 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 160−170 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 0−1
Dota 2 160−170 0−1
Far Cry 5 170−180 0−1
Fortnite 300−350 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 279 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 180−190 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 160−170 0−1
Metro Exodus 164 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 323 0−1
Valorant 350−400 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 197 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 160−170 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 0−1
Dota 2 160−170 0−1
Far Cry 5 170−180 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 248 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 164 0−1
Valorant 411 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 300−350 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 60−65 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 450−500 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 130−140 0−1
Metro Exodus 102 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
Valorant 400−450 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 196 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95 0−1
Far Cry 5 150−160 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 231 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 150−160 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 150−160 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 55−60 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 40−45 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 150−160 0−1
Metro Exodus 67 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 122 0−1
Valorant 300−350 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 134 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 40−45 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 0−1
Dota 2 150−160 0−1
Far Cry 5 100−110 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 162 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 69.37 0.13
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 7 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 300 Watt 27 Watt

RX 6900 XT has a 53261.5% higher aggregate performance score, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1185.7% more advanced lithography process.

ATI X1600, on the other hand, has 1011.1% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 6900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1600 in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT
Radeon RX 6900 XT
ATI Radeon X1600
Radeon X1600

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 3884 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6900 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 59 votes

Rate Radeon X1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 6900 XT or Radeon X1600, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.