Radeon HD 6930 vs RX Vega 11
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 11 and Radeon HD 6930, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 6930 outperforms RX Vega 11 by a substantial 35% 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 | 679 | 604 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.90 |
| Power efficiency | 11.00 | 2.79 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) |
| GPU code name | Raven | Cayman |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 May 2018 (8 years ago) | 1 December 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $180 |
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 | 704 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1251 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,940 million | 2,640 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 186 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.04 | 60.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.761 TFLOPS | 1.92 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 44 | 80 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
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).
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 220 mm |
| Width | IGP | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 6-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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 153.6 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 | Motherboard Dependent | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 (6.4) | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
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.
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.
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 | 28
−25%
| 35−40
+25%
|
| 1440p | 6
−33.3%
| 8−9
+33.3%
|
| 4K | 12
−33.3%
| 16−18
+33.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.14 |
| 1440p | no data | 22.50 |
| 4K | no data | 11.25 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−30.4%
|
30−33
+30.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 31
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−30.4%
|
30−33
+30.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| Fortnite | 86
−27.9%
|
110−120
+27.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 38
−31.6%
|
50−55
+31.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−29%
|
80−85
+29%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 26
−34.6%
|
35−40
+34.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−30.4%
|
30−33
+30.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
−26.4%
|
110−120
+26.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 46
−30.4%
|
60−65
+30.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
−33.3%
|
24−27
+33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 31
−29%
|
40−45
+29%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
−28.6%
|
45−50
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−29%
|
80−85
+29%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 25
−20%
|
30−33
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
−31%
|
55−60
+31%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 29
−20.7%
|
35−40
+20.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−29%
|
80−85
+29%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−33
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−28.2%
|
50−55
+28.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−25%
|
45−50
+25%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−27.3%
|
70−75
+27.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−20%
|
30−33
+20%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 17
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
This is how RX Vega 11 and HD 6930 compete in popular games:
- HD 6930 is 25% faster in 1080p
- HD 6930 is 33% faster in 1440p
- HD 6930 is 33% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.00 | 6.75 |
| Recency | 10 May 2018 | 1 December 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 186 Watt |
RX Vega 11 has an age advantage of 6 years, a 186% more advanced lithography process, and 431% lower power consumption.
HD 6930, on the other hand, has a 35% higher aggregate performance score.
The Radeon HD 6930 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 11 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.
