Radeon Pro 580X vs HD 6950M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6950M with Radeon Pro 580X, including specs and performance data.
Pro 580X outperforms HD 6950M by a whopping 446% 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 | 783 | 337 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.07 | 9.22 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Blackcomb | Polaris 20 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 18 March 2019 (6 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 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,700 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 27.84 | 172.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.114 TFLOPS | 5.53 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 144 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 576 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 2 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1695 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 217.0 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 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
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
−442%
|
65−70
+442%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−442%
|
65−70
+442%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−442%
|
65−70
+442%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
−442%
|
65−70
+442%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−428%
|
95−100
+428%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−431%
|
85−90
+431%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−433%
|
80−85
+433%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−431%
|
260−270
+431%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−442%
|
65−70
+442%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−442%
|
65−70
+442%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
−392%
|
300−310
+392%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−416%
|
160−170
+416%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
−442%
|
65−70
+442%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
−428%
|
95−100
+428%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−431%
|
85−90
+431%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−433%
|
80−85
+433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−445%
|
60−65
+445%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−431%
|
260−270
+431%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−442%
|
65−70
+442%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−416%
|
160−170
+416%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
−442%
|
65−70
+442%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−431%
|
85−90
+431%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−433%
|
80−85
+433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−445%
|
60−65
+445%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−431%
|
260−270
+431%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
−428%
|
95−100
+428%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−420%
|
130−140
+420%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−417%
|
150−160
+417%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−445%
|
180−190
+445%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−440%
|
27−30
+440%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−433%
|
80−85
+433%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−429%
|
90−95
+429%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.30 | 18.02 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 18 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 150 Watt |
HD 6950M has 200% lower power consumption.
Pro 580X, on the other hand, has a 446.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro 580X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6950M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6950M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro 580X is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
