GeForce Go 6800 vs Radeon HD 6950M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6950M and GeForce Go 6800, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 6950M outperforms Go 6800 by a whopping 1224% 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 | 792 | 1426 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.10 | 0.43 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Blackcomb | NV41 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 8 November 2004 (21 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 cores | 960 | 17 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,700 million | 190 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 27.84 | 3.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.114 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 48 | 12 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
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).
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-III |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 35.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.0 (full) 2.1 (partial) |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+96%
|
24−27
−96%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+377%
|
12−14
−377%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+244%
|
9−10
−244%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+96%
|
24−27
−96%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+244%
|
9−10
−244%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+96%
|
24−27
−96%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6950M is 1500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, HD 6950M surpassed Go 6800 in all 26 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.31 | 0.25 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 8 November 2004 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
HD 6950M has a 1224% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 225% more advanced lithography process.
Go 6800, on the other hand, has 11% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 6950M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 6800 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
