RTX 5000 Ada Generation vs Radeon RX 6950 XT

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 6950 XT with RTX 5000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.

RX 6950 XT
2022, $1,099
16 GB GDDR6, 335 Watt
67.09
RTX 5000 Ada Generation
2023
32 GB GDDR6, 250 Watt
73.98
+10.3%

RTX 5000 Ada Generation outperforms 6950 XT by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking2416
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation31.72no data
Power efficiency15.5923.03
ArchitectureRDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameNavi 21AD102
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date10 May 2022 (4 years ago)9 August 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,099 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 cores512012800
Core clock speed1925 MHz1155 MHz
Boost clock speed2324 MHz2550 MHz
Number of transistors26,800 million76,300 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)335 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate743.71,020
Floating-point processing power23.8 TFLOPS65.28 TFLOPS
ROPs128176
TMUs320400
Tensor Coresno data400
Ray Tracing Cores80100
L0 Cache1.3 MBno data
L1 Cache1 MB12.5 MB
L2 Cache4 MB72 MB
L3 Cache128 MBno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length267 mm267 mm
Width3-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pin1x 16-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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount16 GB32 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed2250 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth576.0 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 HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a4x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.13.0
Vulkan1.31.3
CUDA-8.9
DLSS-+

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.

RX 6950 XT 67.09
RTX 5000 Ada Generation 73.98
+10.3%

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.

RX 6950 XT 28068
Samples: 3879
RTX 5000 Ada Generation 30951
+10.3%
Samples: 234

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 HD218240−250
+10.1%
1440p133140−150
+5.3%
4K8490−95
+7.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.04no data
1440p8.26no data
4K13.08no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 351
+0.3%
350−400
Cyberpunk 2077 161 170−180
+5.6%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 349 350−400
+0.3%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 170−180 190−200
+6.1%
Counter-Strike 2 339 350−400
+3.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 143 150−160
+4.9%
Far Cry 5 181 190−200
+5%
Fortnite 300−350
+0.7%
300−310
Forza Horizon 4 270−280 290−300
+7.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 190−200
+9.8%
Valorant 400−450
+0.8%
400−450

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 170−180 190−200
+6.1%
Counter-Strike 2 318 350−400
+10.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 300−310
+7.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 128 140−150
+9.4%
Dota 2 199 210−220
+5.5%
Far Cry 5 173 190−200
+9.8%
Far Cry 6 151 160−170
+6%
Fortnite 300−350
+0.7%
300−310
Forza Horizon 4 270−280 290−300
+7.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 172 180−190
+4.7%
Metro Exodus 189 200−210
+5.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 190−200
+9.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 376 400−450
+6.4%
Valorant 400−450
+0.8%
400−450

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 170−180 190−200
+6.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 122 130−140
+6.6%
Dota 2 167 180−190
+7.8%
Far Cry 5 164 180−190
+9.8%
Forza Horizon 4 270−280 290−300
+7.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 190−200
+9.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 216 230−240
+6.5%
Valorant 400−450
+0.8%
400−450

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 300−350
+0.7%
300−310

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 236 260−270
+10.2%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 500−550 550−600
+6.6%
Far Cry 6 132 140−150
+6.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 153 160−170
+4.6%
Metro Exodus 120 130−140
+8.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 190−200
+8.6%
Valorant 450−500 500−550
+3.1%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 170−180 190−200
+9.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 93 100−105
+7.5%
Far Cry 5 163 170−180
+4.3%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240 250−260
+6.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 160−170 180−190
+6.5%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 160−170
+6%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 58 60−65
+3.4%
Far Cry 6 91 100−105
+9.9%
Grand Theft Auto V 174 190−200
+9.2%
Metro Exodus 77 80−85
+3.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 144 150−160
+4.2%
Valorant 300−350 350−400
+10.1%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 120−130 140−150
+9.4%
Counter-Strike 2 95−100 100−105
+5.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 46 50−55
+8.7%
Dota 2 141 150−160
+6.4%
Far Cry 5 124 130−140
+4.8%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190 200−210
+6.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 100−105
+4.2%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 85−90
+7.6%

This is how RX 6950 XT and RTX 5000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:

  • RTX 5000 Ada Generation is 10% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 5000 Ada Generation is 5% faster in 1440p
  • RTX 5000 Ada Generation is 7% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 67.09 73.98
Recency 10 May 2022 9 August 2023
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 7 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 335 Watt 250 Watt

RTX 5000 Ada Generation has a 10% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 29% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.

The RTX 5000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 6950 XT in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 6950 XT is a desktop graphics card while RTX 5000 Ada Generation is a workstation 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.


3.6 2999 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 95 votes

Rate RTX 5000 Ada Generation on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 6950 XT or RTX 5000 Ada Generation, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.