Radeon RX 6950 XT vs RX 6900 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 6900 XT and Radeon RX 6950 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
6950 XT outperforms 6900 XT by a small 5% 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 | 35 | 24 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 27.30 | 31.82 |
| Power efficiency | 16.52 | 15.59 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 21 | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 28 October 2020 (5 years ago) | 10 May 2022 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $999 | $1,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 6950 XT has 17% better value for money than RX 6900 XT.
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 | 5120 | 5120 |
| Core clock speed | 1825 MHz | 1925 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2250 MHz | 2324 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 26,800 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 335 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 720.0 | 743.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 23.04 TFLOPS | 23.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 128 | 128 |
| TMUs | 320 | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 80 | 80 |
| L0 Cache | 1.3 MB | 1.3 MB |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | 128 MB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 3-slot | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | 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 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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 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:
| Full HD | 199 | 218
+9.5%
|
| 1440p | 137
+3%
| 133 |
| 4K | 85
+1.2%
| 84 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.02
+0.4%
| 5.04 |
| 1440p | 7.29
+11.8%
| 8.26 |
| 4K | 11.75
+10.2%
| 13.08 |
- RX 6900 XT and RX 6950 XT have nearly equal cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 6900 XT has 12% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 6900 XT has 10% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 190−200 | 347
+74.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350 | 351
+14%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 160−170 | 161 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 190−200 | 349
+78.1%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 190−200 | 257
+29.1%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 195
+8.9%
|
170−180 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350 | 339
+10.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 160−170
+12.6%
|
143 |
| Far Cry 5 | 190−200
+5.5%
|
181 |
| Fortnite | 300−350 | 300−350 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 283
+4.8%
|
270−280 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 350−400 | 400−450
+7.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 190−200
+25.2%
|
159 |
| Battlefield 5 | 196
+9.5%
|
170−180 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350 | 318
+3.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 160−170
+25.8%
|
128 |
| Dota 2 | 160−170 | 199
+17.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 190−200
+10.4%
|
173 |
| Fortnite | 300−350 | 300−350 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 279
+3.3%
|
270−280 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170 | 172
+1.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 164 | 189
+15.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 323 | 376
+16.4%
|
| Valorant | 350−400 | 400−450
+7.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 197
+10.1%
|
170−180 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 160−170
+32%
|
122 |
| Dota 2 | 160−170
+1.2%
|
167 |
| Far Cry 5 | 190−200
+16.5%
|
164 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 248 | 270−280
+8.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 164 | 216
+31.7%
|
| Valorant | 411
+2%
|
400−450 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 300−350 | 300−350 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190−200 | 236
+20.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550 | 500−550
+2.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 130−140 | 153
+10.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 102 | 120
+17.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 450−500 | 450−500
+7.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 196
+12.6%
|
170−180 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 93
+1.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+1.2%
|
163 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 231 | 230−240
+1.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 150−160 | 160−170
+8.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160 | 150−160 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 55−60 | 60−65
+8.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+51.7%
|
58 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 150−160 | 174
+10.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 67 | 77
+14.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 122 | 144
+18%
|
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 134
+3.9%
|
120−130 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90 | 95−100
+8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 46
+4.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 150−160
+12.8%
|
141 |
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110 | 124
+18.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 162 | 180−190
+16%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100 | 95−100 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80 | 75−80 |
This is how RX 6900 XT and RX 6950 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6950 XT is 10% faster in 1080p
- RX 6900 XT is 3% faster in 1440p
- RX 6900 XT is 1% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6900 XT is 52% faster.
- in Resident Evil 4 Remake, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 6950 XT is 78% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6900 XT performs better in 19 tests (31%)
- RX 6950 XT performs better in 30 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (21%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 63.80 | 67.23 |
| Recency | 28 October 2020 | 10 May 2022 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 300 Watt | 335 Watt |
RX 6900 XT has 10% lower power consumption.
RX 6950 XT, on the other hand, has a 5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 6900 XT and Radeon RX 6950 XT.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
