Radeon RX 6950 XT vs RX Vega 64 Nano

Primary details

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

Place in performance rankingnot rated14
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data22.75
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Navi / RDNA2 (2020−2022)
GPU code nameVega 10Navi
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 October 2017 (6 years ago)10 May 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,099
Current price$299 $961 (0.9x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores40965120
Core clock speed1156 MHz1925 MHz
Boost clock speed1247 MHz2324 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt335 Watt
Texture fill rate319.2743.7
Floating-point performance10,215 gflopsno 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 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length152 mm267 mm
Width2-slot3-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pin2x 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 typeHBM2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB16 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1600 MHz18000 MHz
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/s576.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI++

API compatibility

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

DirectX12.012 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.1
Vulkanno data1.3

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 October 2017 10 May 2022
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 335 Watt

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano and Radeon RX 6950 XT. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 Vega 64 Nano
Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano
AMD Radeon RX 6950 XT
Radeon RX 6950 XT

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.8 4 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 2621 vote

Rate Radeon RX 6950 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.