Radeon RX 6950 XT vs HD 6770M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6770M with Radeon RX 6950 XT, including specs and performance data.
6950 XT outperforms HD 6770M by a whopping 2817% 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 | 918 | 24 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 31.76 |
| Power efficiency | 5.12 | 15.61 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Whistler | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 10 May 2022 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 480 | 5120 |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 1925 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2324 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 335 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.40 | 743.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.696 TFLOPS | 23.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 128 |
| TMUs | 24 | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 1.3 MB |
| L1 Cache | 48 KB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 128 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.6 GB/s | 576.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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:
| 900p | 23 | 650−700
+2726%
|
| Full HD | 25 | 218
+772%
|
| 1200p | 12 | 350−400
+2817%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−97%
| 133 |
| 4K | 2−3 | 84
+4100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.04 |
| 1440p | no data | 8.26 |
| 4K | no data | 13.08 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 6−7 | 347
+5683%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 351
+5750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 161
+3120%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 6−7 | 257
+4183%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8 | 170−180
+2457%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 339
+5550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 143
+2760%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 181
+2917%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12 | 300−350
+2645%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 270−280
+2150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 170−180
+1342%
|
| Valorant | 40−45 | 400−450
+860%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 6−7 | 159
+2550%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8 | 170−180
+2457%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 318
+5200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50 | 270−280
+504%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 128
+2460%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27 | 199
+729%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 173
+2783%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 4−5 | 151
+3675%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12 | 300−350
+2645%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 270−280
+2150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6 | 172
+3340%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 189
+4625%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 170−180
+1342%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10 | 376
+4078%
|
| Valorant | 40−45 | 400−450
+860%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8 | 170−180
+2457%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 122
+2340%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27 | 167
+596%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 164
+2633%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 270−280
+2150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 170−180
+1342%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10 | 216
+2300%
|
| Valorant | 40−45 | 400−450
+860%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12 | 300−350
+2645%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 236
+4620%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18 | 500−550
+2935%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 3−4 | 132
+4300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24 | 170−180
+695%
|
| Valorant | 21−24 | 450−500
+2210%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 93
+9200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 163
+5333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 230−240
+4580%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | 160−170
+5533%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 150−160
+3675%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 60−65
+6300%
|
| Far Cry 6 | 5−6 | 91
+1720%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 174
+1060%
|
| Valorant | 10−12 | 300−350
+2791%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 6−7 | 141
+2250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 124
+12300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 180−190
+18700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4 | 95−100
+3100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 75−80
+2533%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 153 | 153 |
| Metro Exodus | 120 | 120 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180 | 170−180 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 58 | 58 |
| Metro Exodus | 77 | 77 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 144 | 144 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 46 | 46 |
This is how HD 6770M and RX 6950 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6950 XT is 2726% faster in 900p
- RX 6950 XT is 772% faster in 1080p
- RX 6950 XT is 2817% faster in 1200p
- RX 6950 XT is 3225% faster in 1440p
- RX 6950 XT is 4100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6950 XT is 18700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6950 XT performs better in 55 tests (86%)
- there's a draw in 9 tests (14%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.30 | 67.09 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 10 May 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 335 Watt |
HD 6770M has 90% lower power consumption.
RX 6950 XT, on the other hand, has a 2817% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 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 Radeon HD 6770M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6770M is a notebook 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.
