ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO AGP vs E8950

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon E8950 with Radeon HD 2600 PRO AGP, including specs and performance data.

Radeon E8950
2015
8 GB GDDR5, 95 Watt
13.06
+4923%

E8950 outperforms HD 2600 PRO AGP by a whopping 4923% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4241420
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency10.590.57
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameAmethystRV630
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date29 September 2015 (10 years ago)28 June 2007 (18 years ago)

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 cores2048120
Core clock speed735 MHz594 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,000 million390 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate128.04.752
Floating-point processing power4.096 TFLOPS0.1426 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs1288
L1 Cache512 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KB64 KB

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).

InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)AGP 8x
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR2
Maximum RAM amount8 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz396 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/s12.67 GB/s

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_0)10.0 (10_0)
Shader Model6.34.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.06 0.26
Recency 29 September 2015 28 June 2007
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 35 Watt

Radeon E8950 has a 4923% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132% more advanced lithography process.

ATI HD 2600 PRO AGP, on the other hand, has 171% lower power consumption.

The Radeon E8950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 2600 PRO AGP in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon E8950 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 2600 PRO AGP 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.6 14 votes

Rate Radeon E8950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 14 votes

Rate Radeon HD 2600 PRO AGP on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon E8950 or Radeon HD 2600 PRO AGP, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.