I’ve connected AMD’s RX 6900 XT graphics card up to a 13” laptop and compared it
against the Nvidia RTX 3090 in 10 games at 4K, 1440p, and 1080p resolutions, as well
as content creator workloads to show you what the differences are!
For testing I’ve got the RX 6900 XT inside the Mantiz Saturn Pro Gen II external GPU
enclosure, and this is connected to the Razer Blade Stealth 13 over Thunderbolt, which should
take it to the next level.
This laptop charges over Type-C, so it gets power, network, and the graphics over one
single cable.
These are the differences in specs between the two GPUs we’re looking at.
The key things to note are that Nvidia’s RTX 3090 graphics card has 8gb more VRAM,
but it also costs $500 or 50% more money, so quite a gap.
Now this little laptop is going to have some bottlenecks due to the weaker processor and
thunderbolt compared to a full blown desktop PC, but the fact that we can add more GPU
power like this is still kind of cool.
A setup like this does come at a higher cost though, so it’s more of a niche solution
for people that really just want to maintain one machine and still need portability and
also still want to have some GPU power available when they dock at home.
I’ve tested with an external monitor connected directly to the graphics card, as performance
would be worse using the laptop’s screen, so with all of that in mind, let’s get into
the results.
Assassin’s Creed Valhalla is a newer game that seems to favour AMD, and this was certainly
the case here too.
I’ve got the RX 6900 XT shown by the red bars, and the RTX 3090 shown by the green
bars.
Regardless of the resolution, at the highest setting preset the AMD option was performing
better in the eGPU setup.
Watch Dogs Legion on the other hand was doing significantly better with the RTX 3090 GPU,
reaching 34% higher average FPS at 1080p, however the 1% low was around 83% higher.
Even 1080p isn’t reaching 60 FPS with the highest ultra setting preset though, so for
actually playing you might want to lower settings a bit, I’m just using max for the purposes
of the GPU comparison.
Battlefield V was another win for the RX 6900 XT, well at least at 1080p and 1440p resolutions.
At 4K the 3090 was now a few frames ahead, but probably not too much of a difference
you’re going to notice, and definitely not one that’s worth paying $500 more for anyway.
In Death Stranding things flip back around to the 3090, which is interesting because
when I compared recent Nvidia and AMD GPUs in a desktop PC without the eGPU, Radeon was
generally ahead here.
The 6900 XT is still able to deliver above 60 FPS even at max settings 4K though, the
gap is wider at lower resolutions, as was the case in the last game too.
Control is a game that heavily favours Nvidia graphics, and that was seen here.
Starting with ray tracing off, the 6900 XT was getting basically the same average frame
rate regardless of the resolution in use, though the 1% lows dip down at higher resolutions.
The 3090 on other hand was able to reach 60 FPS at both 1080p and 1440p, even with the
highest setting preset in use.
With ray tracing enabled the 3090 still has the edge.
This is the only game I’ve tested with ray tracing, most seem to favour Nvidia at the
moment while some favour AMD.
Nvidia has second gen ray tracing hardware while AMD has only just entered the chat,
so this may change over time.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare was another win for the 3090 graphics.
At 4K it was only 4% ahead in average frame rate, so no real practical difference, however
there are some pretty big gains in terms of 1% lows at the lower resolutions.
At 1080p for instance, the 3090’s 1% low was 42% ahead of the 6900 XT, while the boost
to average FPS was just 9%, so a more stable experience with the Nvidia setup.
Metro Exodus seemed to favour the RX 6900 XT for the most part, as it was ahead at both
1080p and 1440p resolutions.
Its 1% low was also slightly better at 4K, however the 3090 was a little over 1 FPS ahead
in terms of average, not a practical difference you’ll notice in any case.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider on the other hand was an easy win for the 3090 regardless of
the resolution in use.
The 6900 XT was hardly seeing much difference regardless of the resolution.
Rainbow Six Siege needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
I’ve noted in the past that there are some serious issues running this test on an eGPU
setup.
I kept it in rather than discard it to outline this and show that eGPU isn’t flawless.
At the start of the test, there are plenty of frame dips which take a while to smooth
out, something I’ve never seen on a desktop but always see with an eGPU.
This is worth noting because it results in odd performance with poor 1% lows.
For some reason the 1080p results on the 6900 XT were lower than at 1440p, but at 1440p
the 3090 is only a few frames ahead in average FPS, while the Radeon GPU has the lead in
1% lows regardless of resolution.
The Witcher 3 saw one of the biggest differences out of all 10 games tested in favour of the
RTX 3090.
This was another where the 6900 XT’s frame rate really didn’t seem to differ between
the resolutions.
Even the 1% lows from the 3090 were ahead of the 6900 XT’s averages at 1080p and 1440p,
On average over all 10 games tested with a 1080p resolution, the RTX 3090 was coming
out 23% ahead of the 6900 XT in average FPS.
Results could vary a fair bit depending on the game, for instance the Witcher 3 had strange
results at 1080p, as did Rainbow Six Siege, but the Radeon GPU was able to take the lead
in a few games.
When we step up to 1440p the 3090’s lead lowers to 16%.
The 6900 XT is still ahead in the same three titles, while rainbow six siege and call of
duty aren’t too much ahead on the 3090, but regardless there are quite a few AAA games
that are doing much better on the 3090, but don’t forget that it does also cost 50%
more money.
At the highest 4K resolution the 3090 is now 13% ahead, so the 6900 XT is getting closer
as we increase the resolution.
This time only Assassin’s Creed Valhalla was preferencing the Radeon GPU, however the
performance gap in most other games is lower now.
These are interesting results.
You might be inclined to think that the RTX 3090 should do better as it does cost 50%
more money, but when Hardware Unboxed compared both of these graphics cards in a desktop
PC in this video, the 6900 XT was actually ahead in games at 1440p and 1080p.
The 3090 was only ahead at 4K, granted Steve did test more and different games, but I was
still surprised to see that this trend didn’t carry over to the eGPU setup.
I’m not exactly sure why either, this is the first time I’ve ever used a Radeon graphics
card in an eGPU setup like this.
Outside of gaming, I’ve also tested DaVinci Resolve with the Puget Systems benchmark,
which is generally considered to be more GPU heavy than alternatives like Adobe Premiere.
In this test the 3090 was scoring 25% higher than the 6900 XT.
I’ve also used the Blender Open Data benchmark.
Interestingly the 6900 XT was 6% faster in the longer classroom test, however the 3090
was much faster in the shorter BMW test.
Despite the RTX 3090 being better in most cases, for $500 more, I don’t think it’s
really worth it, unless you’re made of money, which I guess let’s face it, if you’re
picking between these two GPUs in an eGPU setup, you probably are.
You can find updated prices for all of this hardware linked in the description, but the
laptop I’m testing with at the moment is $1800 USD, the eGPU enclosure is $300, the
6900 XT is $1000, and the 3090 is $1500, of course assuming you can actually buy either
of these.
If we just look at the cost of the GPU only, say if you already have a laptop and perhaps
eGPU enclosure, then the 6900 XT is offering much better value.
It’s 50% cheaper but not performing 50% worse in most of the tests, so that makes
sense.
If we instead factor in all costs though, then the 3090 setup is actually offering slightly
better value at 1080p and 1440p, the 6900 XT only has an edge in value at 4K, though
again, at this sort of price range you’re probably not after value.
Actually I just realised I didn’t include costs like external monitor, so if you need
absolutely everything it could be higher.
You could of course buy a cheaper gaming PC for just the cost of this laptop that will
perform better than this setup.
This kind of configuration is really only for people that want to maintain a single
lightweight machine, but still might also need some GPU power when they’re at home.
I think for most people, a more midrange gaming laptop is probably the way to go.
You could get a 15 inch laptop with RTX 2070 Super graphics for less money than this alone,
but that said this is a pretty expensive 13” laptop, and that’s because it’s got the
GTX 1650 Ti Max-Q graphics.
There are absolutely cheaper laptops that still have Thunderbolt, and this is also a
newer 11th gen model that only just came out.
I’ve also compared it with the older 10th gen model in this video here, so you can get
an idea of what the performance difference is in games in an eGPU setup like this with
both 10th gen and 11th gen, so I’ll see you over in that one.
Otherwise if you’re new to the channel, then don’t forget to subscribe for future
laptop videos like this one.