GeForce RTX 5060 vs Radeon E8950
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon E8950 with GeForce RTX 5060, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5060 outperforms E8950 by a whopping 279% 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 | 405 | 67 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 12 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 97.46 |
| Power efficiency | 10.46 | 25.99 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | GB206 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 19 May 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2048 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | 735 MHz | 2280 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2497 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 21,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 145 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 299.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.096 TFLOPS | 19.18 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 | 120 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 120 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 30 |
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 | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 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 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 448.0 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 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 40−45
−303%
| 161
+303%
|
| 1440p | 18−21
−333%
| 78
+333%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−333%
| 52
+333%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.86 |
| 1440p | no data | 3.83 |
| 4K | no data | 5.75 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| God of War | 189
+0%
|
189
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 249
+0%
|
249
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| God of War | 163
+0%
|
163
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 227
+0%
|
227
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| God of War | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 180
+0%
|
180
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 283
+0%
|
283
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 213
+0%
|
213
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| God of War | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 143
+0%
|
143
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 131
+0%
|
131
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 145
+0%
|
145
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| God of War | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 125
+0%
|
125
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
| Valorant | 290−300
+0%
|
290−300
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| God of War | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
This is how Radeon E8950 and RTX 5060 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5060 is 303% faster in 1080p
- RTX 5060 is 333% faster in 1440p
- RTX 5060 is 333% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.03 | 49.41 |
| Recency | 29 September 2015 | 19 May 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 145 Watt |
Radeon E8950 has 52.6% lower power consumption.
RTX 5060, on the other hand, has a 279.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5060 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon E8950 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon E8950 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 5060 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.
