HD Graphics 6000 vs Radeon HD 6950

Place in the ranking	563	861
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.09	no data
Power efficiency	2.33	10.14
Architecture	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)	Generation 8.0 (2014−2015)
GPU code name	Cayman	Broadwell GT3
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	14 December 2010 (14 years ago)	5 September 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$299	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1408	384
Core clock speed	no data	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	800 MHz	950 MHz
Number of transistors	2,640 million	189 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	500 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	70.40	45.60
Floating-point processing power	2.253 TFLOPS	0.7296 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	6
TMUs	88	48

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).

Bus support	PCIe 2.0 x16	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	Ring Bus
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	no data

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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	System Shared
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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	Portable Device Dependent
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire	+	-
Quick Sync	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 11	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	5.0	5.1
OpenGL	4.4	4.4
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	-	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

HD 6950 6.77
+206%

HD Graphics 6000 2.21

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.

HD 6950 2602
+206%

HD Graphics 6000 849

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

HD 6950 3230
+240%

HD Graphics 6000 951

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
+169%

−169%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

8.54

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Elden Ring	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	6 +0%	6 +0%
Elden Ring	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	12 +0%	12 +0%
Fortnite	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3 +0%	3 +0%
World of Tanks	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	15 +0%	15 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
World of Tanks	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Valorant	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Elden Ring	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Fortnite	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Valorant	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

This is how HD 6950 and HD Graphics 6000 compete in popular games:

HD 6950 is 169% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 52 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.77	2.21
Recency	14 December 2010	5 September 2014
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	500 Watt	15 Watt

HD 6950 has a 206.3% higher aggregate performance score.

HD Graphics 6000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 3233.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 6950 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 6000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 6950 is a desktop card while HD Graphics 6000 is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.