Radeon RX 6950 XT vs FirePro A320

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated15
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data27.09
Power efficiencyno data15.12
ArchitectureTeraScale 3 (2010−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameTrinity GLNavi 21
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date6 June 2012 (12 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 cores3845120
Core clock speed800 MHz1925 MHz
Boost clock speed955 MHz2324 MHz
Number of transistors1,303 million26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt335 Watt
Texture fill rate22.92743.7
Floating-point processing power0.7334 TFLOPS23.8 TFLOPS
ROPs8128
TMUs24320
Ray Tracing Coresno data80

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 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
WidthIGP3-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared16 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data576.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 June 2012 10 May 2022
Chip lithography 32 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 335 Watt

FirePro A320 has 235% lower power consumption.

RX 6950 XT, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between FirePro A320 and Radeon RX 6950 XT. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that FirePro A320 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro A320
FirePro A320
AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT
Radeon RX 6950 XT

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 2 votes

Rate FirePro A320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 2701 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.