Radeon RX 6950 XT vs FirePro V3900

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro V3900 with Radeon RX 6950 XT, including specs and performance data.

FirePro V3900
2012, $119
1 GB GDDR3, 199 Watt
1.50
RX 6950 XT
2022, $1,099
16 GB GDDR6, 335 Watt
67.08
+4372%

6950 XT outperforms V3900 by a whopping 4372% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking103824
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.1431.81
Power efficiency2.3415.59
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameTurksNavi 21
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date7 February 2012 (14 years ago)10 May 2022 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$119 $1,099

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX 6950 XT has 22621% better value for money than FirePro V3900.

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores4805120
Core clock speed650 MHz1925 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2324 MHz
Number of transistors716 million26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)199 Watt335 Watt
Texture fill rate15.60743.7
Floating-point processing power0.624 TFLOPS23.8 TFLOPS
ROPs8128
TMUs24320
Ray Tracing Coresno data80
L0 Cacheno data1.3 MB
L1 Cache48 KB1 MB
L2 Cache256 KB4 MB
L3 Cacheno data128 MB

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).

Bus supportPCIe 2.1 x16no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length168 mm267 mm
Width1-slot3-slot
Form factorhalf height / half lengthno data
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth28 GB/s576.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort 1.11x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+
DisplayPort count1no data
Dual-link DVI support+-
HD сomponent video output+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.5
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.22.1
VulkanN/A1.3

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

FirePro V3900 1.50
RX 6950 XT 67.08
+4372%

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.

FirePro V3900 627
Samples: 174
RX 6950 XT 28065
+4376%
Samples: 3860

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 HD4−5
−98.2%
218
1440p2−3
−98.5%
133
4K1−284
+8300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p29.755.04
+83.1%
1440p59.508.26
+86.1%
4K119.0013.08
+89%
  • RX 6950 XT has 83% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 6950 XT has 86% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX 6950 XT has 89% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 347 347
Counter-Strike 2 351 351
Cyberpunk 2077 161 161
Resident Evil 4 Remake 349 349

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 257 257
Battlefield 5 170−180 170−180
Counter-Strike 2 339 339
Cyberpunk 2077 143 143
Far Cry 5 181 181
Fortnite 300−350 300−350
Forza Horizon 4 270−280 270−280
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 400−450 400−450

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 159 159
Battlefield 5 170−180 170−180
Counter-Strike 2 318 318
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 128 128
Dota 2 199 199
Far Cry 5 173 173
Fortnite 300−350 300−350
Forza Horizon 4 270−280 270−280
Grand Theft Auto V 172 172
Metro Exodus 189 189
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 376 376
Valorant 400−450 400−450

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 170−180 170−180
Cyberpunk 2077 122 122
Dota 2 167 167
Far Cry 5 164 164
Forza Horizon 4 270−280 270−280
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 216 216
Valorant 400−450 400−450

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 300−350 300−350

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 236 236
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 500−550 500−550
Grand Theft Auto V 153 153
Metro Exodus 120 120
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 450−500 450−500

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 170−180 170−180
Cyberpunk 2077 93 93
Far Cry 5 163 163
Forza Horizon 4 230−240 230−240
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 160−170 160−170

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 150−160

4K
High

Atomic Heart 60−65 60−65
Counter-Strike 2 58 58
Grand Theft Auto V 174 174
Metro Exodus 77 77
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 144 144
Valorant 300−350 300−350

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 120−130 120−130
Counter-Strike 2 95−100 95−100
Cyberpunk 2077 46 46
Dota 2 141 141
Far Cry 5 124 124
Forza Horizon 4 180−190 180−190
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 95−100

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 75−80

This is how FirePro V3900 and RX 6950 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6950 XT is 5350% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6950 XT is 6550% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6950 XT is 8300% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.50 67.08
Recency 7 February 2012 10 May 2022
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 199 Watt 335 Watt

FirePro V3900 has 41% lower power consumption.

RX 6950 XT, on the other hand, has a 4372% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 83% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6950 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro V3900 in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro V3900 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6950 XT is a desktop one.

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.


3.9 102 votes

Rate FirePro V3900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 2999 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6950 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro V3900 or Radeon RX 6950 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.