RX 6800 XT performance whilst capped to 200 W

[Macro Device]

I was just curious what you can achieve if your RX 6800 XT literally NEVER exceeds the 200 W limit (20 ms spikes are the exception). What clocks are achievable? How much performance (compared to reference at stock) do you lose?

I don't have an RX 6800 XT so I'm asking for your results here. The more 6800 XTs tested the merrier. RX 6800 non-XT and 6900 XT results are also interesting, yet not as much as 6800 XT's.

The reason I'm asking is trivial: can't dispose of more heat than that. PSU and electricity costs are non-issue and irrelevant.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

I was just curious what you can achieve if your RX 6800 XT literally NEVER exceeds the 200 W limit (20 ms spikes are the exception). What clocks are achievable? How much performance (compared to reference at stock) do you lose?

I don't have an RX 6800 XT so I'm asking for your results here. The more 6800 XTs tested the merrier. RX 6800 non-XT and 6900 XT results are also interesting, yet not as much as 6800 XT's.

The reason I'm asking is trivial: can't dispose of more heat than that. PSU and electricity costs are non-issue and irrelevant.

Here has results.

 

[Macro Device]

Here has results.

So it's cca 230 W in an XT variant if we're up to only lose about 2 percent performance. Cutting another 50 W (could be 30 W but to be sure...) should, given I calculated it right, lose us another 3 or 4 percent, at about 5 to 8 percent total losses if we're undervolting it as properly as possible. A lil less than full RTX 3080 raster speed for ~180 W sounds more than feasible.

RX 7700 series is DOA in my case, unless I get it proved RX 6800 XT loses way more than ~8 percent. Thanks.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

There is still a big discrepancy in the supposed specifications of AMD's mid-range 7000 series graphics cards, which are expected* in the market in 2 months. I am not in the business of making preliminary comparisons.

*In last rumours.

 

[Macro Device]

I mean, I got a trusted used GPUs seller and 6800 XTs are available for me for as little as $320 or so. 6900 XTs, unfortunately, cost a lot more ($490 for the cheapest one) and 6800s make no sense because $290 vs $320...

Getting an RX 7700 for <500 USD will be a miracle I guess. But I'm fine with paying low 500ish USD (tax included) for a card which is BNIB and doesn't need any UV to meet my requirements. So if it ends up having $490 or more in its MSRP it's DOA. Ends up losing to undervolted 6800 XT, it's DOA. Ends up not being available at short (<10 in) length without any water cooling shenanigans, it's DOA.

Its DOA status, on the other hand, may as well be proven untrue if 6800 XTs don't sustain >85% speed at <200 W consumption on average. That's why I'm searching for info to compare the yet to release tech with the yet to test one.

NB: this is a personal DOA status. My experience is non-standard, this is known for a fact.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

The thread was started with an introduction that misrepresents its purpose. Now I am aware that you are trying to justify a choice of video card. Yes, undoubtedly a new product when launched, new with a full warranty from the store, is at a price that in most cases seems disadvantageous at first glance, compared to that of used products of the previous generation. If the thread is not closed and allowed to be discussed along these lines, there are enough experienced colleagues to clarify these issues with. I am stopping there with the writing, but I will follow the development.

 

[Macro Device]

If the thread is not closed

By me, it's not. By mods if they find this thread toxic, it is.

you are trying to justify a choice of video card

I'm trying to understand what to buy. RX 6800 XT at 85 and more percent stock speed is fine by me. RX 7700 will be more expensive (not a single doubt) even if I buy a 6800 XT BNIB. This won't be an issue if it's matching 6800 XT's speed and/or is present in variants shorter than 10". Regardless of what I choose I only will get the budget close to late October, none earlier.

To achieve my goal (of understanding) I need data. Data of how good RX 6800 XT is when it's capped by 200 W. I am a no newbie to hardware shenanigans but I can't just downclock my 6700 XT so it's proportionally matching the <200 W undervolted 6800 XT and say how much I'm missing based on my 6700 XT results. It's misleading as they have different dies, as well as these dies are of different sub-generations (Navi 22 is by no mean a weakened vanilla Navi 21, it's something else as clocks are way higher and transients, OTOH, are way lower).

 

[AusWolf]

Since my 6750 XT is a 200 W chip-only card, and the efficiency of larger chips on the same architecture is known to be better, I would assume you can expect at least 6750 XT-like performance, maybe a bit more in some cases.

 

[Macro Device]

Since my 6750 XT is a 200 W chip-only card, and the efficiency of larger chips on the same architecture is known to be better

I know but...

I can't just downclock my 6700 XT so it's proportionally matching the <200 W undervolted 6800 XT and say how much I'm missing based on my 6700 XT results. It's misleading as they have different dies, as well as these dies are of different sub-generations (Navi 22 is by no mean a weakened vanilla Navi 21, it's something else as clocks are way higher and transients, OTOH, are way lower).

These dies are too different to compare.

 

[AusWolf]

I know but...

These dies are too different to compare.

True, but you have more VRAM, more GPU components and more infinity cache.

 

[Macro Device]

I'm guessing I don't need no 7700...

 

[AusWolf]

I'm guessing I don't need no 7700...

View attachment 305110View attachment 305111

RX 7700? Where did that come from?

 

[Macro Device]

Where did that come from?

Some "insider" by the name of AllTheWatts!! has bestown this information upon us on his Twitter.

To mods: the info under the spoiler is COMPLETELY off-topic so I will move it somewhere else when I realise where it's the most appropriate.

This is the first time I'm seeing AMD trying SO EFFIN HARD to lose every single piece of cake. RX 7700 is way slower than RX 6800 XT and can't even match the plain 6800. Leaks also point on RX 7800 being unable to compete its predecessor, too. It's slower than mean 6800 XT, yet to the extent of a couple percent.

It could've been absolutely OK if these cards were launched a year ago for $400 and $550 respectively. But they're not even launched yet and they are... utterly weak. R9 200 to 300 transition made more sense than that.

 

[AusWolf]

Some "insider" by the name of AllTheWatts!! has bestown this information upon us on his Twitter.

To mods: the info under the spoiler is COMPLETELY off-topic so I will move it somewhere else when I realise where it's the most appropriate.

This is the first time I'm seeing AMD trying SO EFFIN HARD to lose every single piece of cake. RX 7700 is way slower than RX 6800 XT and can't even match the plain 6800. Leaks also point on RX 7800 being unable to compete its predecessor, too. It's slower than mean 6800 XT, yet to the extent of a couple percent.

It could've been absolutely OK if these cards were launched a year ago for $400 and $550 respectively. But they're not even launched yet and they are... utterly weak. R9 200 to 300 transition made more sense than that.

"Insider"... ah, so it's photoshopped.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

RX 7700? Where did that come from?

This is rx 6800 xt.

 

[Macro Device]

This is rx 6800 xt.

so it's photoshopped.

We only can hope.