GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB vs Radeon HD 6990M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6990M with GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB outperforms HD 6990M by a whopping 1045% 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 | 682 | 54 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 35 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 75.43 |
| Power efficiency | 3.65 | 23.23 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | Blackcomb | GB206 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 July 2011 (14 years ago) | 16 April 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $429 |
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 | 1120 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 715 MHz | 2407 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2572 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,700 million | 21,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 40.04 | 370.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.602 TFLOPS | 23.7 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 48 |
| TMUs | 56 | 144 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 144 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 36 |
| L1 Cache | 224 KB | 4.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 32 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 5.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 241 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | 448.0 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 12.0 |
| 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:
| 900p | 54
−1011%
| 600−650
+1011%
|
| Full HD | 60
−983%
| 650−700
+983%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 0.66 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−1036%
|
250−260
+1036%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−1000%
|
110−120
+1000%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−1000%
|
220−230
+1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−1036%
|
250−260
+1036%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−1000%
|
110−120
+1000%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
−1005%
|
210−220
+1005%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−1033%
|
170−180
+1033%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−934%
|
300−310
+934%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−1030%
|
260−270
+1030%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−977%
|
140−150
+977%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−1005%
|
210−220
+1005%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−983%
|
650−700
+983%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−1000%
|
220−230
+1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−1036%
|
250−260
+1036%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
−984%
|
900−950
+984%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−1000%
|
110−120
+1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−998%
|
450−500
+998%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
−1005%
|
210−220
+1005%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−1033%
|
170−180
+1033%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−934%
|
300−310
+934%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−1030%
|
260−270
+1030%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−977%
|
140−150
+977%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−1025%
|
180−190
+1025%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−1011%
|
100−105
+1011%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−1005%
|
210−220
+1005%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−1043%
|
160−170
+1043%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−983%
|
650−700
+983%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 20−22
−1000%
|
220−230
+1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−1000%
|
110−120
+1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−998%
|
450−500
+998%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
−1005%
|
210−220
+1005%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−1033%
|
170−180
+1033%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−1030%
|
260−270
+1030%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−1005%
|
210−220
+1005%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−1043%
|
160−170
+1043%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−983%
|
650−700
+983%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
−934%
|
300−310
+934%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−1011%
|
100−105
+1011%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−981%
|
400−450
+981%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−1043%
|
400−450
+1043%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−1032%
|
600−650
+1032%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
−1011%
|
100−105
+1011%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−1011%
|
100−105
+1011%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−991%
|
120−130
+991%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1043%
|
80−85
+1043%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
−1011%
|
100−105
+1011%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−1025%
|
180−190
+1025%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1025%
|
270−280
+1025%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1025%
|
180−190
+1025%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1025%
|
45−50
+1025%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1043%
|
80−85
+1043%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
This is how HD 6990M and RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB compete in popular games:
- RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB is 1011% faster in 900p
- RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB is 983% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.76 | 54.48 |
| Recency | 12 July 2011 | 16 April 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 180 Watt |
HD 6990M has 80% lower power consumption.
RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, on the other hand, has a 1044.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6990M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6990M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB 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.
