Quadro NVS 420 vs Radeon RX 6900 XT

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 6900 XT with Quadro NVS 420, including specs and performance data.

RX 6900 XT
2020, $999
16 GB GDDR6, 300 Watt
63.61
+19176%

6900 XT outperforms NVS 420 by a whopping 19176% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking351360
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation30.370.01
Power efficiency16.350.64
ArchitectureRDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameNavi 21G98
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date28 October 2020 (5 years ago)20 January 2009 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999 $131.43

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RX 6900 XT has 303600% better value for money than NVS 420.

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 cores51208 ×2
Core clock speed1825 MHz550 MHz
Boost clock speed2250 MHzno data
Number of transistors26,800 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)300 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate720.04.400 ×2
Floating-point processing power23.04 TFLOPS0.0224 TFLOPS ×2
ROPs1284 ×2
TMUs3208 ×2
Ray Tracing Cores80no data
L0 Cache1.3 MBno data
L1 Cache1 MBno data
L2 Cache4 MB16 KB
L3 Cache128 MBno 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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width3-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount16 GB256 MB ×2
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit ×2
Memory clock speed2000 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth512.0 GB/s11.2 GB/s ×2
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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-CNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.84.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.11.1
Vulkan1.3N/A
CUDA-1.1

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

RX 6900 XT 63.61
+19176%
NVS 420 0.33

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.

RX 6900 XT 26730
+19411%
Samples: 7207
NVS 420 137
Samples: 44

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 HD196
+19500%
1−2
−19500%
1440p1340−1
4K83-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.10
+2479%
131.43
−2479%
1440p7.46no data
4K12.04no data
  • RX 6900 XT has 2479% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+30600%
1−2
−30600%
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 195
+19400%
1−2
−19400%
Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+30600%
1−2
−30600%
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 120−130 0−1
Far Cry 5 190−200 0−1
Fortnite 300−350
+30100%
1−2
−30100%
Forza Horizon 4 283
+28200%
1−2
−28200%
Forza Horizon 5 190−200
+19200%
1−2
−19200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
Valorant 350−400
+36200%
1−2
−36200%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 196
+19500%
1−2
−19500%
Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+30600%
1−2
−30600%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+27700%
1−2
−27700%
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 0−1
Dota 2 160−170 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 120−130 0−1
Far Cry 5 190−200 0−1
Fortnite 300−350
+30100%
1−2
−30100%
Forza Horizon 4 279
+27800%
1−2
−27800%
Forza Horizon 5 190−200
+19200%
1−2
−19200%
Grand Theft Auto V 160−170 0−1
Metro Exodus 164 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 323
+32200%
1−2
−32200%
Valorant 350−400
+36200%
1−2
−36200%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 197
+19600%
1−2
−19600%
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 0−1
Dota 2 160−170 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 120−130 0−1
Far Cry 5 190−200 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 248
+24700%
1−2
−24700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 164 0−1
Valorant 411
+20450%
2−3
−20450%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 300−350
+30100%
1−2
−30100%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 190−200
+19500%
1−2
−19500%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 500−550
+25000%
2−3
−25000%
Grand Theft Auto V 130−140 0−1
Metro Exodus 102 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 0−1
Valorant 400−450
+22350%
2−3
−22350%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 196
+19500%
1−2
−19500%
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 120−130 0−1
Far Cry 5 160−170 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 231
+23000%
1−2
−23000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 150−160 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 0−1

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 85−90 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 150−160 0−1
Metro Exodus 67 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 122 0−1
Valorant 300−350
+32800%
1−2
−32800%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 134 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 85−90 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 0−1
Dota 2 150−160 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 80−85 0−1
Far Cry 5 100−110 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 162 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 0−1

This is how RX 6900 XT and NVS 420 compete in popular games:

  • RX 6900 XT is 19500% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 63.61 0.33
Recency 28 October 2020 20 January 2009
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 7 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 300 Watt 40 Watt

RX 6900 XT has a 19175.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 420, on the other hand, has 650% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 6900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 420 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 6900 XT is a desktop graphics card while Quadro NVS 420 is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT
Radeon RX 6900 XT
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 420
Quadro NVS 420

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.


4.1 4268 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6900 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 9 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 420 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 6900 XT or Quadro NVS 420, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.