RTX A2000 vs Radeon E8950
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon E8950 with RTX A2000, including specs and performance data.
RTX A2000 outperforms E8950 by a whopping 146% 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 | 424 | 187 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 32.08 |
| Power efficiency | 10.59 | 35.33 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | GA106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 29 September 2015 (10 years ago) | 10 August 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 3328 |
| Core clock speed | 735 MHz | 562 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.096 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 | 104 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 104 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 26 |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 3.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 3 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).
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 167 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 288.0 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
API and SDK support
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 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| 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 | 35−40
−157%
| 90
+157%
|
| 1440p | 16−18
−169%
| 43
+169%
|
| 4K | 10−12
−170%
| 27
+170%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.99 |
| 1440p | no data | 10.44 |
| 4K | no data | 16.63 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 108
+0%
|
108
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how Radeon E8950 and RTX A2000 compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 is 157% faster in 1080p
- RTX A2000 is 169% faster in 1440p
- RTX A2000 is 170% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.06 | 32.12 |
| Recency | 29 September 2015 | 10 August 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 70 Watt |
Radeon E8950 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RTX A2000, on the other hand, has a 145.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 35.7% lower power consumption.
The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon E8950 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon E8950 is a notebook graphics card while RTX A2000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
