Radeon RX 6950 XT vs A10G

Place in the ranking	67	17
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	27.23
Power efficiency	22.40	15.07
Architecture	Ampere (2020−2024)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GA102	Navi 21
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	12 April 2021 (3 years ago)	10 May 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$1,099

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

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

Pipelines / CUDA cores	9216	5120
Core clock speed	1320 MHz	1925 MHz
Boost clock speed	1710 MHz	2324 MHz
Number of transistors	28,300 million	26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	8 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	335 Watt
Texture fill rate	492.5	743.7
Floating-point processing power	31.52 TFLOPS	23.8 TFLOPS
ROPs	96	128
TMUs	288	320
Tensor Cores	288	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	72	80

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	1-slot	3-slot
Supplementary power connectors	8-pin EPS	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	12 GB	16 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	1563 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	600.2 GB/s	576.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	No outputs	1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.6	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	3.0	2.1
Vulkan	1.2	1.3
CUDA	8.6	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

A10G 48.72

RX 6950 XT 73.23
+50.3%

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.

A10G 18723

RX 6950 XT 28144
+50.3%

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	140−150 −57.9%	221 +57.9%
1440p	85−90 −57.6%	134 +57.6%
4K	55−60 −54.5%	85 +54.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	4.97
1440p	no data	8.20
4K	no data	12.93

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	204 +0%	204 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	161 +0%	161 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	198 +0%	198 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	71 +0%	71 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	500 +0%	500 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	146 +0%	146 +0%
Metro Exodus	152 +0%	152 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Valorant	350−400 +0%	350−400 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	168 +0%	168 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	64 +0%	64 +0%
Dota 2	181 +0%	181 +0%
Far Cry 5	99 +0%	99 +0%
Fortnite	290−300 +0%	290−300 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	442 +0%	442 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	172 +0%	172 +0%
Metro Exodus	146 +0%	146 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	210−220 +0%	210−220 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Valorant	350−400 +0%	350−400 +0%
World of Tanks	270−280 +0%	270−280 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	153 +0%	153 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	61 +0%	61 +0%
Dota 2	167 +0%	167 +0%
Far Cry 5	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	396 +0%	396 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	138 +0%	138 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	210−220 +0%	210−220 +0%
Valorant	350−400 +0%	350−400 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Dota 2	153 +0%	153 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	153 +0%	153 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
World of Tanks	500−550 +0%	500−550 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	47 +0%	47 +0%
Far Cry 5	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	294 +0%	294 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Metro Exodus	132 +0%	132 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%
Valorant	300−350 +0%	300−350 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Dota 2	174 +0%	174 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	174 +0%	174 +0%
Metro Exodus	77 +0%	77 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	174 +0%	174 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	20 +0%	20 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	23 +0%	23 +0%
Dota 2	141 +0%	141 +0%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Fortnite	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	172 +0%	172 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Valorant	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%

This is how A10G and RX 6950 XT compete in popular games:

RX 6950 XT is 58% faster in 1080p
RX 6950 XT is 58% faster in 1440p
RX 6950 XT is 55% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	48.72	73.23
Recency	12 April 2021	10 May 2022
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	16 GB
Chip lithography	8 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	335 Watt

A10G has 123.3% lower power consumption.

RX 6950 XT, on the other hand, has a 50.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6950 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the A10G in performance tests.

Be aware that A10G is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6950 XT is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.