RTX 6000 Ada Generation vs GeForce GT 425M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 425M with RTX 6000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms GT 425M by a whopping 5332% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 973 | 13 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.29 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Ada Lovelace |
| GPU code name | N11P-GS | Ada Lovelace |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 August 2010 (13 years ago) | 3 December 2022 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $6,799 |
| Current price | $45 | $9290 (1.4x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GT 425M and RTX 6000 Ada Generation have a nearly equal value for money.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 18176 |
| CUDA cores | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 560 MHz | 915 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2505 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 76,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 6.7 billion/sec | 1,423 |
| Floating-point performance | 215.04 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 425M and RTX 6000 Ada Generation compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 type | DDR3 | 8.9 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 bit Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 20000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 960.0 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 | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.9 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms GeForce GT 425M by 5332% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms GeForce GT 425M by 5313% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms GeForce GT 425M by 9309% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms GeForce GT 425M by 3641% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms GeForce GT 425M by 15566% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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 | 11
−4900%
| 550−600
+4900%
|
| Full HD | 16
−1113%
| 194
+1113%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−7950%
| 161
+7950%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−5800%
| 118
+5800%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−5150%
|
210−220
+5150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−5700%
|
110−120
+5700%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−2900%
|
120−130
+2900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−5150%
|
210−220
+5150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−5800%
|
110−120
+5800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−5900%
|
180−190
+5900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−7433%
|
220−230
+7433%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−4000%
|
120−130
+4000%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−2107%
|
300−350
+2107%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−6100%
|
120−130
+6100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−3711%
|
300−350
+3711%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−1050%
|
130−140
+1050%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−5700%
|
110−120
+5700%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−2900%
|
120−130
+2900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−5150%
|
210−220
+5150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−5800%
|
110−120
+5800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−5900%
|
180−190
+5900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−7433%
|
220−230
+7433%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−4000%
|
120−130
+4000%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−2107%
|
300−350
+2107%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−6100%
|
120−130
+6100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−3711%
|
300−350
+3711%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−12125%
|
489
+12125%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−1050%
|
130−140
+1050%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−5700%
|
110−120
+5700%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−2900%
|
120−130
+2900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−5150%
|
210−220
+5150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−5800%
|
110−120
+5800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−7433%
|
220−230
+7433%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−2107%
|
300−350
+2107%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−3711%
|
300−350
+3711%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−6400%
|
260
+6400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−1050%
|
130−140
+1050%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−6100%
|
120−130
+6100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−16500%
|
160−170
+16500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−14300%
|
140−150
+14300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−8500%
|
85−90
+8500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−2625%
|
100−110
+2625%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4900%
|
50−55
+4900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−5800%
|
118
+5800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−17800%
|
170−180
+17800%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−1429%
|
100−110
+1429%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−3680%
|
180−190
+3680%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−21800%
|
219
+21800%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−2850%
|
110−120
+2850%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−6800%
|
65−70
+6800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−17200%
|
173
+17200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−3000%
|
60−65
+3000%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 50−55 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 50−55 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−11400%
|
110−120
+11400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−2350%
|
98
+2350%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2600%
|
80−85
+2600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−6350%
|
120−130
+6350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−5775%
|
230−240
+5775%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−7150%
|
140−150
+7150%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−6350%
|
120−130
+6350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−5775%
|
230−240
+5775%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−5400%
|
55
+5400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−6350%
|
120−130
+6350%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−9200%
|
90−95
+9200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−9800%
|
99
+9800%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3−4
−6967%
|
210−220
+6967%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−8100%
|
80−85
+8100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−8700%
|
85−90
+8700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
−6400%
|
65−70
+6400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 2−3
−6300%
|
128
+6300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−6033%
|
184
+6033%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−6450%
|
130−140
+6450%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 45−50 |
This is how GT 425M and RTX 6000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 4900% faster in 900p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 1113% faster in 1080p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 7950% faster in 1440p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 5800% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 21800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 6000 Ada Generation surpassed GT 425M in all 46 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.36 | 73.88 |
| Recency | 15 August 2010 | 3 December 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 300 Watt |
The RTX 6000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 425M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 425M is a notebook card while RTX 6000 Ada Generation is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
