Radeon RX 6900 XT vs FirePro M5950
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M5950 with Radeon RX 6900 XT, including specs and performance data.
6900 XT outperforms M5950 by a whopping 1933% 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 | 802 | 35 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 29.43 |
| Power efficiency | 6.91 | 16.38 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Whistler | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 28 October 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
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 | 1825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.40 | 720.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.696 TFLOPS | 23.04 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 |
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 3-slot |
| Form factor | MXM-A | no data |
| 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 | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57 GB/s | 512.0 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, 1x USB Type-C |
| 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 | 6.8 |
| 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.
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 | 24
−1775%
| 450−500
+1775%
|
| Full HD | 26
−665%
| 199
+665%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−2183%
| 137
+2183%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−2025%
| 85
+2025%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.02 |
| 1440p | no data | 7.29 |
| 4K | no data | 11.75 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−2700%
|
300−350
+2700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−2583%
|
160−170
+2583%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 4−5
−4825%
|
190−200
+4825%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−1673%
|
195
+1673%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−2700%
|
300−350
+2700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−2583%
|
160−170
+2583%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−2033%
|
190−200
+2033%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−1676%
|
300−350
+1676%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−1669%
|
283
+1669%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−2313%
|
190−200
+2313%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1143%
|
170−180
+1143%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−656%
|
350−400
+656%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−1682%
|
196
+1682%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−2700%
|
300−350
+2700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
−373%
|
270−280
+373%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−2583%
|
160−170
+2583%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−463%
|
160−170
+463%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−2033%
|
190−200
+2033%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−1676%
|
300−350
+1676%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−1644%
|
279
+1644%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−2313%
|
190−200
+2313%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
−1778%
|
160−170
+1778%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−2633%
|
164
+2633%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1143%
|
170−180
+1143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−3130%
|
323
+3130%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−656%
|
350−400
+656%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−1691%
|
197
+1691%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−2583%
|
160−170
+2583%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−463%
|
160−170
+463%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−2033%
|
190−200
+2033%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−1450%
|
248
+1450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1143%
|
170−180
+1143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−1540%
|
164
+1540%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−756%
|
411
+756%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−1676%
|
300−350
+1676%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−2700%
|
190−200
+2700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−1996%
|
500−550
+1996%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 130−140 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−10100%
|
102
+10100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−525%
|
170−180
+525%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1390%
|
400−450
+1390%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4500%
|
90−95
+4500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−3200%
|
160−170
+3200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−2788%
|
231
+2788%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2980%
|
150−160
+2980%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−2417%
|
150−160
+2417%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−947%
|
150−160
+947%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−2087%
|
300−350
+2087%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 40−45 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−1667%
|
150−160
+1667%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−5100%
|
100−110
+5100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−5300%
|
162
+5300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−2300%
|
95−100
+2300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1875%
|
75−80
+1875%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 196
+0%
|
196
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
This is how FirePro M5950 and RX 6900 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6900 XT is 1775% faster in 900p
- RX 6900 XT is 665% faster in 1080p
- RX 6900 XT is 2183% faster in 1440p
- RX 6900 XT is 2025% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6900 XT is 10100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6900 XT performs better in 52 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.14 | 63.83 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 28 October 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 300 Watt |
FirePro M5950 has 757% lower power consumption.
RX 6900 XT, on the other hand, has a 1933% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M5950 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M5950 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6900 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.
