Graphics cards are pivotal in determining your PC’s performance, whether for immersive gaming, demanding AI tasks like Stable Diffusion, or professional video editing. Even the best CPUs take a backseat when it comes to graphical workloads. At compare.edu.vn, we specialize in providing in-depth comparisons to help you make informed decisions, and in the realm of graphics, comparing NVIDIA cards to the competition and within their own lineup is crucial.
This year has seen the latest iterations of current-generation GPUs, with NVIDIA releasing the RTX 4070 Super, RTX 4070 Ti Super, and RTX 4080 Super, alongside AMD’s RX 7600 XT and RX 7900 GRE. Looking ahead, the highly anticipated next-generation GPUs like NVIDIA Blackwell RTX 50-series, AMD RDNA 4, and Intel Battlemage are expected to arrive, potentially as early as late 2024 or early 2025, promising significant shifts in the GPU landscape.
As we stand on the cusp of these new releases, understanding the current performance hierarchy is essential. We’re also gearing up to revamp our GPU testing methodology with new games and a platform shift, potentially towards the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D, after experiencing issues with our previous Intel Core i9-13900K testbed. This will lead to a complete re-evaluation of GPU performance across the board.
Below, you’ll find our comprehensive GPU benchmarks hierarchy, initially focusing on traditional rasterization performance, followed by a dedicated section for ray tracing benchmarks. It’s important to note that these benchmarks are conducted at native resolutions without enabling upscaling technologies like DLSS, FSR, or XeSS, providing a raw performance comparison.
NVIDIA’s current RTX 40-series cards are built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, introducing features like DLSS 3 Frame Generation and DLSS 3.5 Ray Reconstruction, enhancing performance and visual fidelity in supported games. AMD’s RX 7000-series utilizes the RDNA 3 architecture, while Intel’s Arc Alchemist architecture marks their entry into the dedicated GPU market, positioning themselves as competitors, particularly in the mid-range segment.
For those interested in older generations, our page two contains benchmarks from 2020-2021 using a Core i9-9900K testbed, offering a historical perspective on GPU performance evolution. We also provide a legacy GPU hierarchy, sorted by theoretical performance for reference.
The performance rankings presented in the following tables are based on our rigorous gaming benchmarks at 1080p “ultra” settings for the main suite and 1080p “medium” for the DXR (DirectX Raytracing) suite. Factors like price, power consumption, efficiency, and specific features are not considered in these rankings, focusing purely on raw gaming performance. Our current 2024 results are derived from an Alder Lake Core i9-12900K testbed. Let’s delve into the benchmarks and see how NVIDIA cards stack up.
GPU Benchmarks Ranking 2025
Image 1 of 4
Image 2 of 4
Image 3 of 4
Image 4 of 4
Our latest GPU benchmarks encompass a wide range of cards released over the last seven years, tested at 1080p medium and 1080p ultra settings, with the table sorted by 1080p ultra performance. Where relevant, we also include 1440p ultra and 4K ultra results. All scores are normalized against the top-performing card at 1080p ultra, the RTX 4090, particularly highlighting performance scaling at higher resolutions.
The summary chart above provides a visual representation of relative performance across several GPU generations at 1080p ultra. Swipe through the gallery to see charts for 1080p medium, 1440p, and 4K ultra. While some older or niche cards are omitted for clarity, the data provides a comprehensive overview.
Our standard GPU benchmark suite includes eight demanding games: Borderlands 3, Far Cry 6, Flight Simulator, Forza Horizon 5, Horizon Zero Dawn, Red Dead Redemption 2, Total War Warhammer 3, and Watch Dogs Legion. The FPS score is a geometric mean across these titles, offering a balanced performance metric. The specifications column provides links to our detailed reviews for each GPU, allowing you to dive deeper into individual card analysis and Compare Nvidia Cards specifications directly.
GPU Rasterization Hierarchy: Key Takeaways
Swipe to scroll horizontally
| Graphics Card | Lowest Price | 1080p Ultra | 1080p Medium | 1440p Ultra | 4K Ultra | Specifications (Links to Review) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GeForce RTX 4090 | $2,529 | 100.0% (154.1fps) | 100.0% (195.7fps) | 100.0% (146.1fps) | 100.0% (114.5fps) | AD102, 16384 shaders, 2520MHz, 24GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 1008GB/s, 450W |
| Radeon RX 7900 XTX | $869 | 96.7% (149.0fps) | 97.2% (190.3fps) | 92.6% (135.3fps) | 83.1% (95.1fps) | Navi 31, 6144 shaders, 2500MHz, 24GB GDDR6@20Gbps, 960GB/s, 355W |
| GeForce RTX 4080 Super | No Stock | 96.2% (148.3fps) | 98.5% (192.7fps) | 91.0% (133.0fps) | 80.3% (91.9fps) | AD103, 10240 shaders, 2550MHz, 16GB GDDR6X@23Gbps, 736GB/s, 320W |
| GeForce RTX 4080 | $1,699 | 95.4% (147.0fps) | 98.1% (192.0fps) | 89.3% (130.4fps) | 78.0% (89.3fps) | AD103, 9728 shaders, 2505MHz, 16GB [email protected], 717GB/s, 320W |
| Radeon RX 7900 XT | $649 | 93.4% (143.9fps) | 95.8% (187.6fps) | 86.1% (125.9fps) | 71.0% (81.2fps) | Navi 31, 5376 shaders, 2400MHz, 20GB GDDR6@20Gbps, 800GB/s, 315W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super | $899 | 92.3% (142.3fps) | 96.8% (189.4fps) | 83.5% (122.0fps) | 68.7% (78.6fps) | AD103, 8448 shaders, 2610MHz, 16GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 672GB/s, 285W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 Ti | $759 | 89.8% (138.3fps) | 95.7% (187.2fps) | 79.8% (116.5fps) | 63.8% (73.0fps) | AD104, 7680 shaders, 2610MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 504GB/s, 285W |
| Radeon RX 7900 GRE | No Stock | 88.1% (135.8fps) | 94.1% (184.3fps) | 78.0% (113.9fps) | 60.5% (69.3fps) | Navi 31, 5120 shaders, 2245MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 576GB/s, 260W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 Super | $609 | 87.1% (134.2fps) | 94.6% (185.1fps) | 75.2% (109.8fps) | 57.8% (66.1fps) | AD104, 7168 shaders, 2475MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 504GB/s, 220W |
| Radeon RX 6950 XT | $859 | 84.7% (130.5fps) | 91.7% (179.4fps) | 75.3% (110.1fps) | 58.6% (67.1fps) | Navi 21, 5120 shaders, 2310MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 576GB/s, 335W |
| GeForce RTX 3090 Ti | $1,899 | 84.7% (130.5fps) | 90.5% (177.1fps) | 77.1% (112.7fps) | 66.3% (75.9fps) | GA102, 10752 shaders, 1860MHz, 24GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 1008GB/s, 450W |
| Radeon RX 7800 XT | $489 | 83.9% (129.3fps) | 91.5% (179.1fps) | 72.4% (105.8fps) | 54.4% (62.3fps) | Navi 32, 3840 shaders, 2430MHz, 16GB [email protected], 624GB/s, 263W |
| GeForce RTX 3090 | $1,530 | 81.4% (125.5fps) | 88.9% (174.0fps) | 72.5% (106.0fps) | 61.8% (70.7fps) | GA102, 10496 shaders, 1695MHz, 24GB [email protected], 936GB/s, 350W |
| Radeon RX 6900 XT | $810 | 80.9% (124.6fps) | 89.6% (175.3fps) | 69.9% (102.1fps) | 53.5% (61.2fps) | Navi 21, 5120 shaders, 2250MHz, 16GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 300W |
| GeForce RTX 3080 Ti | $979 | 80.4% (123.9fps) | 87.8% (171.8fps) | 71.1% (103.9fps) | 60.1% (68.8fps) | GA102, 10240 shaders, 1665MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 912GB/s, 350W |
| Radeon RX 6800 XT | $1,150 | 79.6% (122.7fps) | 88.5% (173.2fps) | 67.8% (99.0fps) | 50.6% (57.9fps) | Navi 21, 4608 shaders, 2250MHz, 16GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 300W |
| GeForce RTX 3080 12GB | $829 | 79.2% (122.1fps) | 86.5% (169.4fps) | 70.0% (102.3fps) | 58.3% (66.7fps) | GA102, 8960 shaders, 1845MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 912GB/s, 400W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 | $549 | 79.2% (122.0fps) | 90.7% (177.5fps) | 66.9% (97.8fps) | 50.0% (57.2fps) | AD104, 5888 shaders, 2475MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 504GB/s, 200W |
| GeForce RTX 3080 | $788 | 76.0% (117.0fps) | 85.6% (167.6fps) | 66.0% (96.4fps) | 54.1% (62.0fps) | GA102, 8704 shaders, 1710MHz, 10GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 760GB/s, 320W |
| Radeon RX 7700 XT | $409 | 75.3% (116.1fps) | 87.7% (171.6fps) | 63.4% (92.7fps) | 45.0% (51.5fps) | Navi 32, 3456 shaders, 2544MHz, 12GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 432GB/s, 245W |
| Radeon RX 6800 | $849 | 74.4% (114.6fps) | 86.2% (168.7fps) | 61.0% (89.2fps) | 44.3% (50.7fps) | Navi 21, 3840 shaders, 2105MHz, 16GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 250W |
| GeForce RTX 3070 Ti | $699 | 67.5% (104.0fps) | 81.6% (159.8fps) | 56.7% (82.8fps) | 41.7% (47.7fps) | GA104, 6144 shaders, 1770MHz, 8GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 608GB/s, 290W |
| Radeon RX 6750 XT | $354 | 66.8% (102.9fps) | 82.6% (161.6fps) | 52.9% (77.2fps) | 37.4% (42.8fps) | Navi 22, 2560 shaders, 2600MHz, 12GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 432GB/s, 250W |
| GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB | $634 | 65.3% (100.6fps) | 82.6% (161.7fps) | 51.8% (75.7fps) | 36.4% (41.6fps) | AD106, 4352 shaders, 2535MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 160W |
| GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | $399 | 65.1% (100.4fps) | 81.8% (160.1fps) | 51.7% (75.6fps) | 34.6% (39.6fps) | AD106, 4352 shaders, 2535MHz, 8GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 160W |
| Titan RTX | Row 25 – Cell 1 | 64.5% (99.3fps) | 80.0% (156.6fps) | 54.4% (79.5fps) | 41.8% (47.8fps) | TU102, 4608 shaders, 1770MHz, 24GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 672GB/s, 280W |
| Radeon RX 6700 XT | $499 | 64.3% (99.1fps) | 80.8% (158.1fps) | 50.3% (73.4fps) | 35.3% (40.4fps) | Navi 22, 2560 shaders, 2581MHz, 12GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 384GB/s, 230W |
| GeForce RTX 3070 | $495 | 64.1% (98.8fps) | 79.1% (154.8fps) | 53.2% (77.7fps) | 38.8% (44.4fps) | GA104, 5888 shaders, 1725MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 220W |
| GeForce RTX 2080 Ti | Row 28 – Cell 1 | 62.5% (96.3fps) | 77.2% (151.0fps) | 51.8% (75.6fps) | 38.0% (43.5fps) | TU102, 4352 shaders, 1545MHz, 11GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 616GB/s, 250W |
| Radeon RX 7600 XT | $314 | 59.7% (91.9fps) | 77.3% (151.2fps) | 45.1% (65.9fps) | 32.4% (37.1fps) | Navi 33, 2048 shaders, 2755MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 190W |
| GeForce RTX 3060 Ti | $498 | 58.9% (90.7fps) | 75.0% (146.9fps) | 47.9% (70.0fps) | Row 30 – Cell 5 | GA104, 4864 shaders, 1665MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 200W |
| Radeon RX 6700 10GB | No Stock | 55.9% (86.1fps) | 74.4% (145.7fps) | 43.0% (62.8fps) | 28.7% (32.9fps) | Navi 22, 2304 shaders, 2450MHz, 10GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 320GB/s, 175W |
| GeForce RTX 2080 Super | Row 32 – Cell 1 | 55.8% (86.0fps) | 72.2% (141.3fps) | 45.2% (66.1fps) | 32.1% (36.7fps) | TU104, 3072 shaders, 1815MHz, 8GB [email protected], 496GB/s, 250W |
| GeForce RTX 4060 | $294 | 55.1% (84.9fps) | 72.7% (142.3fps) | 41.9% (61.2fps) | 27.8% (31.9fps) | AD107, 3072 shaders, 2460MHz, 8GB GDDR6@17Gbps, 272GB/s, 115W |
| GeForce RTX 2080 | Row 34 – Cell 1 | 53.5% (82.5fps) | 69.8% (136.7fps) | 43.2% (63.2fps) | Row 34 – Cell 5 | TU104, 2944 shaders, 1710MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 215W |
| Radeon RX 7600 | $259 | 53.2% (82.0fps) | 72.3% (141.4fps) | 39.2% (57.3fps) | 25.4% (29.1fps) | Navi 33, 2048 shaders, 2655MHz, 8GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 165W |
| Radeon RX 6650 XT | $254 | 50.4% (77.7fps) | 70.0% (137.1fps) | 37.3% (54.5fps) | Row 36 – Cell 5 | Navi 23, 2048 shaders, 2635MHz, 8GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 280GB/s, 180W |
| GeForce RTX 2070 Super | Row 37 – Cell 1 | 50.3% (77.4fps) | 66.2% (129.6fps) | 40.0% (58.4fps) | Row 37 – Cell 5 | TU104, 2560 shaders, 1770MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 215W |
| Intel Arc A770 16GB | $299 | 49.9% (76.9fps) | 59.4% (116.4fps) | 41.0% (59.8fps) | 30.8% (35.3fps) | ACM-G10, 4096 shaders, 2400MHz, 16GB [email protected], 560GB/s, 225W |
| Intel Arc A770 8GB | No Stock | 48.9% (75.3fps) | 59.0% (115.5fps) | 39.3% (57.5fps) | 29.0% (33.2fps) | ACM-G10, 4096 shaders, 2400MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 225W |
| Radeon RX 6600 XT | $259 | 48.5% (74.7fps) | 68.2% (133.5fps) | 35.7% (52.2fps) | Row 40 – Cell 5 | Navi 23, 2048 shaders, 2589MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 256GB/s, 160W |
| Radeon RX 5700 XT | Row 41 – Cell 1 | 47.6% (73.3fps) | 63.8% (124.9fps) | 36.3% (53.1fps) | 25.6% (29.3fps) | Navi 10, 2560 shaders, 1905MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 225W |
| GeForce RTX 3060 | Row 42 – Cell 1 | 46.9% (72.3fps) | 61.8% (121.0fps) | 36.9% (54.0fps) | Row 42 – Cell 5 | GA106, 3584 shaders, 1777MHz, 12GB GDDR6@15Gbps, 360GB/s, 170W |
| Intel Arc A750 | $239 | 45.9% (70.8fps) | 56.4% (110.4fps) | 36.7% (53.7fps) | 27.2% (31.1fps) | ACM-G10, 3584 shaders, 2350MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 225W |
| GeForce RTX 2070 | Row 44 – Cell 1 | 45.3% (69.8fps) | 60.8% (119.1fps) | 35.5% (51.8fps) | Row 44 – Cell 5 | TU106, 2304 shaders, 1620MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 175W |
| Radeon VII | Row 45 – Cell 1 | 45.1% (69.5fps) | 58.2% (113.9fps) | 36.3% (53.0fps) | 27.5% (31.5fps) | Vega 20, 3840 shaders, 1750MHz, 16GB [email protected], 1024GB/s, 300W |
| GeForce GTX 1080 Ti | Row 46 – Cell 1 | 43.1% (66.4fps) | 56.3% (110.2fps) | 34.4% (50.2fps) | 25.8% (29.5fps) | GP102, 3584 shaders, 1582MHz, 11GB GDDR5X@11Gbps, 484GB/s, 250W |
| GeForce RTX 2060 Super | Row 47 – Cell 1 | 42.5% (65.5fps) | 57.2% (112.0fps) | 33.1% (48.3fps) | Row 47 – Cell 5 | TU106, 2176 shaders, 1650MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 175W |
| Radeon RX 6600 | $189 | 42.3% (65.2fps) | 59.3% (116.2fps) | 30.6% (44.8fps) | Row 48 – Cell 5 | Navi 23, 1792 shaders, 2491MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 224GB/s, 132W |
| Intel Arc A580 | $169 | 42.3% (65.1fps) | 51.6% (101.1fps) | 33.4% (48.8fps) | 24.4% (27.9fps) | ACM-G10, 3072 shaders, 2300MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 185W |
| Radeon RX 5700 | Row 50 – Cell 1 | 41.9% (64.5fps) | 56.6% (110.8fps) | 31.9% (46.7fps) | Row 50 – Cell 5 | Navi 10, 2304 shaders, 1725MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 180W |
| Radeon RX 5600 XT | Row 51 – Cell 1 | 37.5% (57.8fps) | 51.1% (100.0fps) | 28.8% (42.0fps) | Row 51 – Cell 5 | Navi 10, 2304 shaders, 1750MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 336GB/s, 160W |
| Radeon RX Vega 64 | Row 52 – Cell 1 | 36.8% (56.7fps) | 48.2% (94.3fps) | 28.5% (41.6fps) | 20.5% (23.5fps) | Vega 10, 4096 shaders, 1546MHz, 8GB [email protected], 484GB/s, 295W |
| GeForce RTX 2060 | Row 53 – Cell 1 | 36.0% (55.5fps) | 51.4% (100.5fps) | 27.5% (40.1fps) | Row 53 – Cell 5 | TU106, 1920 shaders, 1680MHz, 6GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 336GB/s, 160W |
| GeForce GTX 1080 | Row 54 – Cell 1 | 34.4% (53.0fps) | 45.9% (89.9fps) | 27.0% (39.4fps) | Row 54 – Cell 5 | GP104, 2560 shaders, 1733MHz, 8GB GDDR5X@10Gbps, 320GB/s, 180W |
| GeForce RTX 3050 | $169 | 33.7% (51.9fps) | 45.4% (88.8fps) | 26.4% (38.5fps) | Row 55 – Cell 5 | GA106, 2560 shaders, 1777MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 224GB/s, 130W |
| GeForce GTX 1070 Ti | Row 56 – Cell 1 | 33.1% (51.1fps) | 43.8% (85.7fps) | 26.0% (37.9fps) | Row 56 – Cell 5 | GP104, 2432 shaders, 1683MHz, 8GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 256GB/s, 180W |
| Radeon RX Vega 56 | Row 57 – Cell 1 | 32.8% (50.6fps) | 43.0% (84.2fps) | 25.3% (37.0fps) | Row 57 – Cell 5 | Vega 10, 3584 shaders, 1471MHz, 8GB [email protected], 410GB/s, 210W |
| GeForce GTX 1660 Super | Row 58 – Cell 1 | 30.3% (46.8fps) | 43.7% (85.5fps) | 22.8% (33.3fps) | Row 58 – Cell 5 | TU116, 1408 shaders, 1785MHz, 6GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 336GB/s, 125W |
| GeForce GTX 1660 Ti | Row 59 – Cell 1 | 30.3% (46.6fps) | 43.3% (84.8fps) | 22.8% (33.3fps) | Row 59 – Cell 5 | TU116, 1536 shaders, 1770MHz, 6GB GDDR6@12Gbps, 288GB/s, 120W |
| GeForce GTX 1070 | Row 60 – Cell 1 | 29.0% (44.7fps) | 38.3% (75.0fps) | 22.7% (33.1fps) | Row 60 – Cell 5 | GP104, 1920 shaders, 1683MHz, 8GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 256GB/s, 150W |
| GeForce GTX 1660 | Row 61 – Cell 1 | 27.7% (42.6fps) | 39.7% (77.8fps) | 20.8% (30.3fps) | Row 61 – Cell 5 | TU116, 1408 shaders, 1785MHz, 6GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 192GB/s, 120W |
| Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB | Row 62 – Cell 1 | 25.7% (39.7fps) | 36.8% (72.1fps) | 19.3% (28.2fps) | Row 62 – Cell 5 | Navi 14, 1408 shaders, 1845MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 224GB/s, 130W |
| Radeon RX 590 | Row 63 – Cell 1 | 25.5% (39.3fps) | 35.0% (68.5fps) | 19.9% (29.0fps) | Row 63 – Cell 5 | Polaris 30, 2304 shaders, 1545MHz, 8GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 256GB/s, 225W |
| GeForce GTX 980 Ti | Row 64 – Cell 1 | 23.3% (35.9fps) | 32.0% (62.6fps) | 18.2% (26.6fps) | Row 64 – Cell 5 | GM200, 2816 shaders, 1075MHz, 6GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 336GB/s, 250W |
| Radeon RX 580 8GB | Row 65 – Cell 1 | 22.9% (35.3fps) | 31.5% (61.7fps) | 17.8% (26.0fps) | Row 65 – Cell 5 | Polaris 20, 2304 shaders, 1340MHz, 8GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 256GB/s, 185W |
| Radeon R9 Fury X | Row 66 – Cell 1 | 22.9% (35.2fps) | 32.6% (63.8fps) | Row 66 – Cell 4 | Row 66 – Cell 5 | Fiji, 4096 shaders, 1050MHz, 4GB HBM2@2Gbps, 512GB/s, 275W |
| GeForce GTX 1650 Super | Row 67 – Cell 1 | 22.0% (33.9fps) | 34.6% (67.7fps) | 14.5% (21.2fps) | Row 67 – Cell 5 | TU116, 1280 shaders, 1725MHz, 4GB GDDR6@12Gbps, 192GB/s, 100W |
| Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB | Row 68 – Cell 1 | 21.6% (33.3fps) | 34.1% (66.8fps) | Row 68 – Cell 4 | Row 68 – Cell 5 | Navi 14, 1408 shaders, 1845MHz, 4GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 224GB/s, 130W |
| GeForce GTX 1060 6GB | Row 69 – Cell 1 | 20.8% (32.1fps) | 29.5% (57.7fps) | 15.8% (23.0fps) | Row 69 – Cell 5 | GP106, 1280 shaders, 1708MHz, 6GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 192GB/s, 120W |
| Radeon RX 6500 XT | $232 | 19.9% (30.6fps) | 33.6% (65.8fps) | 12.3% (18.0fps) | Row 70 – Cell 5 | Navi 24, 1024 shaders, 2815MHz, 4GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 144GB/s, 107W |
| Radeon R9 390 | Row 71 – Cell 1 | 19.3% (29.8fps) | 26.1% (51.1fps) | Row 71 – Cell 4 | Row 71 – Cell 5 | Grenada, 2560 shaders, 1000MHz, 8GB GDDR5@6Gbps, 384GB/s, 275W |
| GeForce GTX 980 | Row 72 – Cell 1 | 18.7% (28.9fps) | 27.4% (53.6fps) | Row 72 – Cell 4 | Row 72 – Cell 5 | GM204, 2048 shaders, 1216MHz, 4GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 256GB/s, 165W |
| GeForce GTX 1650 GDDR6 | Row 73 – Cell 1 | 18.7% (28.8fps) | 28.9% (56.6fps) | Row 73 – Cell 4 | Row 73 – Cell 5 | TU117, 896 shaders, 1590MHz, 4GB GDDR6@12Gbps, 192GB/s, 75W |
| Intel Arc A380 | $119 | 18.4% (28.4fps) | 27.7% (54.3fps) | 13.3% (19.5fps) | Row 74 – Cell 5 | ACM-G11, 1024 shaders, 2450MHz, 6GB [email protected], 186GB/s, 75W |
| Radeon RX 570 4GB | Row 75 – Cell 1 | 18.2% (28.1fps) | 27.4% (53.6fps) | 13.6% (19.9fps) | Row 75 – Cell 5 | Polaris 20, 2048 shaders, 1244MHz, 4GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 224GB/s, 150W |
| GeForce GTX 1650 | Row 76 – Cell 1 | 17.5% (27.0fps) | 26.2% (51.3fps) | Row 76 – Cell 4 | Row 76 – Cell 5 | TU117, 896 shaders, 1665MHz, 4GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 128GB/s, 75W |
| GeForce GTX 970 | Row 77 – Cell 1 | 17.2% (26.5fps) | 25.0% (49.0fps) | Row 77 – Cell 4 | Row 77 – Cell 5 | GM204, 1664 shaders, 1178MHz, 4GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 256GB/s, 145W |
| Radeon RX 6400 | $209 | 15.7% (24.1fps) | 26.1% (51.1fps) | Row 78 – Cell 4 | Row 78 – Cell 5 | Navi 24, 768 shaders, 2321MHz, 4GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 128GB/s, 53W |
| GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | Row 79 – Cell 1 | 12.9% (19.8fps) | 19.4% (38.0fps) | Row 79 – Cell 4 | Row 79 – Cell 5 | GP107, 768 shaders, 1392MHz, 4GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 112GB/s, 75W |
| GeForce GTX 1060 3GB | Row 80 – Cell 1 | Row 80 – Cell 2 | 26.8% (52.5fps) | Row 80 – Cell 4 | Row 80 – Cell 5 | GP106, 1152 shaders, 1708MHz, 3GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 192GB/s, 120W |
| GeForce GTX 1630 | Row 81 – Cell 1 | 10.9% (16.9fps) | 17.3% (33.8fps) | Row 81 – Cell 4 | Row 81 – Cell 5 | TU117, 512 shaders, 1785MHz, 4GB GDDR6@12Gbps, 96GB/s, 75W |
| Radeon RX 560 4GB | Row 82 – Cell 1 | 9.6% (14.7fps) | 16.2% (31.7fps) | Row 82 – Cell 4 | Row 82 – Cell 5 | Baffin, 1024 shaders, 1275MHz, 4GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 112GB/s, 60-80W |
| GeForce GTX 1050 | Row 83 – Cell 1 | Row 83 – Cell 2 | 15.2% (29.7fps) | Row 83 – Cell 4 | Row 83 – Cell 5 | GP107, 640 shaders, 1455MHz, 2GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 112GB/s, 75W |
| Radeon RX 550 4GB | Row 84 – Cell 1 | Row 84 – Cell 2 | 10.0% (19.5fps) | Row 84 – Cell 4 | Row 84 – Cell 5 | Lexa, 640 shaders, 1183MHz, 4GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 112GB/s, 50W |
| GeForce GT 1030 | Row 85 – Cell 1 | Row 85 – Cell 2 | 7.5% (14.6fps) | Row 85 – Cell 4 | Row 85 – Cell 5 | GP108, 384 shaders, 1468MHz, 2GB GDDR5@6Gbps, 48GB/s, 30W |
*: GPU couldn’t run all tests, so the overall score is slightly skewed at 1080p ultra.
While the RTX 4090 tops the charts at 1080p ultra, its true dominance is revealed at 1440p and 4K resolutions. At 1080p ultra, it shows a marginal 2% performance lead over the RTX 4080 Super, which expands significantly to 9% at 1440p and a massive 25% at 4K. Our FPS metric is a blended score, prioritizing average FPS while also considering 1% low FPS values.
It’s important to remember that this table excludes ray tracing and DLSS performance metrics to ensure a level playing field across all generations of GPUs. Since DLSS is an NVIDIA-specific technology (and DLSS 3 is exclusive to RTX 40-series), including it would skew direct comparisons. For those interested in upscaling performance, our RTX 4070 review includes detailed DLSS 2/3 and FSR 2 upscaling benchmarks.
The RTX 4090 commands a premium price, although its value proposition is arguably stronger than the previous generation RTX 3090. The RTX 3090 offered only incremental performance gains over the RTX 3080 at launch, primarily boasting double the VRAM. NVIDIA has maximized performance with the 4090, pushing core counts, clock speeds, and power limits to unprecedented levels. However, the RTX 4090 faces challenges including limited availability at MSRP due to high demand from the AI sector, often exceeding $2,000, and concerns around its 450W power draw through the 16-pin connector.
Stepping down from the RTX 4090, the RTX 4080 Super and RX 7900 XTX trade blows at higher resolutions, while CPU bottlenecks become more apparent at 1080p. Our forthcoming testbed update will provide further insights into these dynamics.
Beyond the latest NVIDIA and AMD offerings, the RX 6000- and RTX 30-series GPUs remain viable options, especially if you already own one. Upgrading might not be essential for current users of these cards. Intel’s Arc GPUs present an intriguing wildcard in this landscape.
We’ve consistently tested and retested Arc GPUs, and with driver improvements, they now complete our full benchmark suite reliably. While efficiency isn’t their forte, the Arc A750 offers a compelling balance of performance and price.
Looking at older generations, the RTX 20-series and GTX 16-series, alongside the RX 5000-series, are distributed throughout the rankings. Generally, newer architectures provide a performance increase equivalent to one or two “model upgrades.” For instance, the RTX 2080 Super performs just below the RTX 3060 Ti, and the RX 5700 XT closely matches the newer, more affordable RX 6600 XT.
As we delve further back in GPU history, modern games at ultra settings expose the limitations of cards with 4GB VRAM or less. While 4GB was once barely sufficient, today, we recommend at least 8GB VRAM for comfortable gaming, with 12GB or more being ideal for mainstream GPUs, and 16GB+ for high-end cards. Older cards like the GTX 1060 3GB and GTX 1050 struggled or failed to run some of our tests, slightly skewing their overall scores, despite performing relatively better at 1080p medium settings.
Now, let’s shift our focus to ray tracing performance and compare NVIDIA cards in this demanding rendering technique.
Ray Tracing GPU Benchmarks Ranking 2025
Ray tracing, especially in graphically intensive games, can significantly impact frame rates. Our ray tracing benchmarks are conducted using “medium” and “ultra” settings. “Medium” typically involves enabling ray tracing effects on medium graphics presets, while “ultra” maximizes all ray tracing options for highest visual fidelity.
Due to the performance demands of ray tracing, we’ve sorted these results by 1080p medium performance. Lower-end cards like the RX 6500 XT, RX 6400, and Arc A380 struggle significantly with ray tracing even at these settings, making higher resolution testing impractical. However, we’ve included 1080p ultra results for reference in the charts.
Our ray tracing benchmark suite comprises five games that heavily utilize DirectX 12 / DX12 Ultimate API: Bright Memory Infinite, Control Ultimate Edition, Cyberpunk 2077, Metro Exodus Enhanced, and Minecraft. The FPS score is a geometric mean across these titles, scaled relative to the RTX 4090, the fastest GPU in this test.
To glimpse the future of ray tracing, explore our Alan Wake 2 benchmarks, where path tracing pushes even high-end GPUs to their limits, even with upscaling. However, it’s crucial to note that games where ray tracing offers a truly transformative visual experience remain limited. For most games, traditional rasterization rendering still provides a more balanced performance and visual quality.
Image 1 of 4
Image 2 of 4
Image 3 of 4
Image 4 of 4
GPU Ray Tracing Hierarchy: Key Takeaways
Swipe to scroll horizontally
| Graphics Card | Lowest Price | 1080p Medium | 1080p Ultra | 1440p Ultra | 4K Ultra | Specifications (Links to Review) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GeForce RTX 4090 | $2,643 | 100.0% (165.9fps) | 100.0% (136.3fps) | 100.0% (103.9fps) | 100.0% (55.9fps) | AD102, 16384 shaders, 2520MHz, 24GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 1008GB/s, 450W |
| GeForce RTX 4080 Super | No Stock | 86.8% (144.0fps) | 85.3% (116.3fps) | 75.6% (78.6fps) | 70.5% (39.4fps) | AD103, 10240 shaders, 2550MHz, 16GB GDDR6X@23Gbps, 736GB/s, 320W |
| GeForce RTX 4080 | $1,725 | 85.4% (141.6fps) | 83.4% (113.6fps) | 73.1% (76.0fps) | 67.7% (37.8fps) | AD103, 9728 shaders, 2505MHz, 16GB [email protected], 717GB/s, 320W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super | $819 | 77.3% (128.2fps) | 73.5% (100.3fps) | 63.5% (66.0fps) | 58.4% (32.6fps) | AD103, 8448 shaders, 2610MHz, 16GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 672GB/s, 285W |
| GeForce RTX 3090 Ti | $1,899 | 71.9% (119.3fps) | 68.4% (93.2fps) | 59.6% (62.0fps) | 56.9% (31.8fps) | GA102, 10752 shaders, 1860MHz, 24GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 1008GB/s, 450W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 Ti | $739 | 71.5% (118.6fps) | 67.1% (91.6fps) | 56.9% (59.1fps) | 52.3% (29.2fps) | AD104, 7680 shaders, 2610MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 504GB/s, 285W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 Super | $609 | 68.1% (113.0fps) | 62.7% (85.6fps) | 52.4% (54.5fps) | 47.8% (26.7fps) | AD104, 7168 shaders, 2475MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 504GB/s, 220W |
| GeForce RTX 3090 | $1,389 | 67.7% (112.4fps) | 63.5% (86.6fps) | 55.1% (57.2fps) | 51.8% (28.9fps) | GA102, 10496 shaders, 1695MHz, 24GB [email protected], 936GB/s, 350W |
| GeForce RTX 3080 Ti | $979 | 66.5% (110.4fps) | 62.2% (84.8fps) | 53.2% (55.3fps) | 48.6% (27.1fps) | GA102, 10240 shaders, 1665MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 912GB/s, 350W |
| Radeon RX 7900 XTX | $869 | 66.1% (109.6fps) | 61.7% (84.1fps) | 53.2% (55.3fps) | 48.6% (27.2fps) | Navi 31, 6144 shaders, 2500MHz, 24GB GDDR6@20Gbps, 960GB/s, 355W |
| GeForce RTX 3080 12GB | $829 | 64.9% (107.6fps) | 59.9% (81.7fps) | 50.8% (52.8fps) | 46.3% (25.8fps) | GA102, 8960 shaders, 1845MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 912GB/s, 400W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 | $519 | 61.2% (101.4fps) | 54.2% (73.9fps) | 45.1% (46.9fps) | 40.7% (22.7fps) | AD104, 5888 shaders, 2475MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 504GB/s, 200W |
| Radeon RX 7900 XT | $689 | 60.4% (100.3fps) | 55.3% (75.3fps) | 46.7% (48.5fps) | 41.6% (23.3fps) | Navi 31, 5376 shaders, 2400MHz, 20GB GDDR6@20Gbps, 800GB/s, 315W |
| GeForce RTX 3080 | $829 | 60.2% (99.8fps) | 54.5% (74.3fps) | 46.1% (47.9fps) | 41.8% (23.3fps) | GA102, 8704 shaders, 1710MHz, 10GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 760GB/s, 320W |
| Radeon RX 7900 GRE | No Stock | 52.9% (87.7fps) | 46.8% (63.7fps) | 39.6% (41.2fps) | 35.7% (19.9fps) | Navi 31, 5120 shaders, 2245MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 576GB/s, 260W |
| GeForce RTX 3070 Ti | $499 | 50.6% (84.0fps) | 43.0% (58.6fps) | 35.7% (37.1fps) | Row 15 – Cell 5 | GA104, 6144 shaders, 1770MHz, 8GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 608GB/s, 290W |
| Radeon RX 6950 XT | $1,199 | 48.3% (80.1fps) | 41.4% (56.4fps) | 34.3% (35.7fps) | 31.0% (17.3fps) | Navi 21, 5120 shaders, 2310MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 576GB/s, 335W |
| GeForce RTX 3070 | $399 | 47.2% (78.2fps) | 39.9% (54.4fps) | 32.8% (34.1fps) | Row 17 – Cell 5 | GA104, 5888 shaders, 1725MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 220W |
| Radeon RX 7800 XT | $489 | 46.7% (77.5fps) | 41.9% (57.1fps) | 34.9% (36.3fps) | 31.0% (17.3fps) | Navi 32, 3840 shaders, 2430MHz, 16GB [email protected], 624GB/s, 263W |
| Radeon RX 6900 XT | $811 | 45.4% (75.4fps) | 38.3% (52.3fps) | 32.1% (33.3fps) | 28.8% (16.1fps) | Navi 21, 5120 shaders, 2250MHz, 16GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 300W |
| GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | $399 | 45.2% (75.1fps) | 38.7% (52.8fps) | 32.3% (33.5fps) | 24.8% (13.9fps) | AD106, 4352 shaders, 2535MHz, 8GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 160W |
| GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB | $449 | 45.2% (75.0fps) | 38.8% (53.0fps) | 32.7% (34.0fps) | 29.5% (16.5fps) | AD106, 4352 shaders, 2535MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 160W |
| Titan RTX | Row 22 – Cell 1 | 44.8% (74.4fps) | 39.1% (53.3fps) | 33.7% (35.0fps) | 31.2% (17.4fps) | TU102, 4608 shaders, 1770MHz, 24GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 672GB/s, 280W |
| GeForce RTX 2080 Ti | Row 23 – Cell 1 | 42.7% (70.9fps) | 37.2% (50.7fps) | 31.6% (32.9fps) | Row 23 – Cell 5 | TU102, 4352 shaders, 1545MHz, 11GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 616GB/s, 250W |
| Radeon RX 6800 XT | $1,099 | 42.2% (70.0fps) | 35.6% (48.5fps) | 29.9% (31.1fps) | 26.8% (15.0fps) | Navi 21, 4608 shaders, 2250MHz, 16GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 300W |
| GeForce RTX 3060 Ti | $453 | 41.9% (69.5fps) | 35.0% (47.7fps) | 28.8% (30.0fps) | Row 25 – Cell 5 | GA104, 4864 shaders, 1665MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 200W |
| Radeon RX 7700 XT | $404 | 41.3% (68.4fps) | 36.5% (49.7fps) | 30.6% (31.8fps) | 27.2% (15.2fps) | Navi 32, 3456 shaders, 2544MHz, 12GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 432GB/s, 245W |
| Radeon RX 6800 | $849 | 36.3% (60.1fps) | 30.2% (41.2fps) | 25.4% (26.3fps) | Row 27 – Cell 5 | Navi 21, 3840 shaders, 2105MHz, 16GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 250W |
| GeForce RTX 2080 Super | Row 28 – Cell 1 | 35.8% (59.4fps) | 30.8% (42.0fps) | 26.1% (27.1fps) | Row 28 – Cell 5 | TU104, 3072 shaders, 1815MHz, 8GB [email protected], 496GB/s, 250W |
| GeForce RTX 4060 | $294 | 35.4% (58.8fps) | 30.6% (41.7fps) | 24.9% (25.8fps) | Row 29 – Cell 5 | AD107, 3072 shaders, 2460MHz, 8GB GDDR6@17Gbps, 272GB/s, 115W |
| GeForce RTX 2080 | Row 30 – Cell 1 | 34.4% (57.1fps) | 29.1% (39.7fps) | 24.6% (25.5fps) | Row 30 – Cell 5 | TU104, 2944 shaders, 1710MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 215W |
| Intel Arc A770 8GB | No Stock | 32.7% (54.2fps) | 28.4% (38.7fps) | 24.0% (24.9fps) | Row 31 – Cell 5 | ACM-G10, 4096 shaders, 2400MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 225W |
| Intel Arc A770 16GB | $299 | 32.6% (54.1fps) | 28.3% (38.6fps) | 25.3% (26.2fps) | Row 32 – Cell 5 | ACM-G10, 4096 shaders, 2400MHz, 16GB [email protected], 560GB/s, 225W |
| GeForce RTX 3060 | Row 33 – Cell 1 | 31.7% (52.5fps) | 25.7% (35.1fps) | 21.1% (22.0fps) | Row 33 – Cell 5 | GA106, 3584 shaders, 1777MHz, 12GB GDDR6@15Gbps, 360GB/s, 170W |
| GeForce RTX 2070 Super | Row 34 – Cell 1 | 31.6% (52.4fps) | 26.8% (36.6fps) | 22.3% (23.1fps) | Row 34 – Cell 5 | TU104, 2560 shaders, 1770MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 215W |
| Intel Arc A750 | $189 | 30.7% (51.0fps) | 26.8% (36.6fps) | 22.6% (23.5fps) | Row 35 – Cell 5 | ACM-G10, 3584 shaders, 2350MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 225W |
| Radeon RX 6750 XT | $359 | 30.0% (49.8fps) | 25.3% (34.5fps) | 20.7% (21.5fps) | Row 36 – Cell 5 | Navi 22, 2560 shaders, 2600MHz, 12GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 432GB/s, 250W |
| Radeon RX 6700 XT | $519 | 28.1% (46.6fps) | 23.7% (32.3fps) | 19.1% (19.9fps) | Row 37 – Cell 5 | Navi 22, 2560 shaders, 2581MHz, 12GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 384GB/s, 230W |
| GeForce RTX 2070 | Row 38 – Cell 1 | 27.9% (46.3fps) | 23.5% (32.1fps) | 19.7% (20.4fps) | Row 38 – Cell 5 | TU106, 2304 shaders, 1620MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 175W |
| Intel Arc A580 | $169 | 27.5% (45.6fps) | 24.0% (32.7fps) | 20.3% (21.1fps) | Row 39 – Cell 5 | ACM-G10, 3072 shaders, 2300MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 185W |
| GeForce RTX 2060 Super | Row 40 – Cell 1 | 26.8% (44.5fps) | 22.4% (30.5fps) | 18.5% (19.3fps) | Row 40 – Cell 5 | TU106, 2176 shaders, 1650MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 175W |
| Radeon RX 7600 XT | $314 | 26.6% (44.2fps) | 22.6% (30.8fps) | 18.3% (19.0fps) | 16.0% (8.9fps) | Navi 33, 2048 shaders, 2755MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 190W |
| Radeon RX 6700 10GB | No Stock | 25.9% (42.9fps) | 21.4% (29.2fps) | 16.8% (17.5fps) | Row 42 – Cell 5 | Navi 22, 2304 shaders, 2450MHz, 10GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 320GB/s, 175W |
| GeForce RTX 2060 | Row 43 – Cell 1 | 23.2% (38.4fps) | 18.6% (25.4fps) | Row 43 – Cell 4 | Row 43 – Cell 5 | TU106, 1920 shaders, 1680MHz, 6GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 336GB/s, 160W |
| Radeon RX 7600 | $249 | 23.1% (38.3fps) | 18.9% (25.7fps) | 14.7% (15.2fps) | Row 44 – Cell 5 | Navi 33, 2048 shaders, 2655MHz, 8GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 165W |
| Radeon RX 6650 XT | $254 | 22.7% (37.6fps) | 18.8% (25.6fps) | Row 45 – Cell 4 | Row 45 – Cell 5 | Navi 23, 2048 shaders, 2635MHz, 8GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 280GB/s, 180W |
| GeForce RTX 3050 | $169 | 22.3% (36.9fps) | 18.0% (24.6fps) | Row 46 – Cell 4 | Row 46 – Cell 5 | GA106, 2560 shaders, 1777MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 224GB/s, 130W |
| Radeon RX 6600 XT | $239 | 22.1% (36.7fps) | 18.2% (24.8fps) | Row 47 – Cell 4 | Row 47 – Cell 5 | Navi 23, 2048 shaders, 2589MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 256GB/s, 160W |
| Radeon RX 6600 | $189 | 18.6% (30.8fps) | 15.2% (20.7fps) | Row 48 – Cell 4 | Row 48 – Cell 5 | Navi 23, 1792 shaders, 2491MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 224GB/s, 132W |
| Intel Arc A380 | $119 | 11.0% (18.3fps) | Row 49 – Cell 3 | Row 49 – Cell 4 | Row 49 – Cell 5 | ACM-G11, 1024 shaders, 2450MHz, 6GB [email protected], 186GB/s, 75W |
| Radeon RX 6500 XT | $139 | 5.9% (9.9fps) | Row 50 – Cell 3 | Row 50 – Cell 4 | Row 50 – Cell 5 | Navi 24, 1024 shaders, 2815MHz, 4GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 144GB/s, 107W |
| Radeon RX 6400 | $139 | 5.0% (8.3fps) | Row 51 – Cell 3 | Row 51 – Cell 4 | Row 51 – Cell 5 | Navi 24, 768 shaders, 2321MHz, 4GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 128GB/s, 53W |
NVIDIA’s Ada Lovelace architecture delivers significant ray tracing performance gains. The RTX 4090 outperforms the previous-gen RTX 3090 Ti by a substantial 41% at 1080p medium in ray tracing benchmarks. This lead escalates to 53% at 1080p ultra and nearly 64% at 1440p, showcasing NVIDIA’s advancements in ray tracing capabilities. NVIDIA claimed “2x to 4x faster than RTX 3090 Ti” at the RTX 4090 launch, factoring in DLSS 3 Frame Generation. Even without DLSS 3, the RTX 4090 is 72% faster than the RTX 3090 Ti at 4K in ray tracing scenarios.
AMD, while improving rasterization performance and employing chiplets in RDNA 3 GPUs to reduce costs, lags in ray tracing. The RX 7900 XTX performs similarly to NVIDIA’s RTX 3080 12GB, positioning it just ahead of the RTX 4070 in ray tracing performance, and this isn’t consistent across all DXR titles. RDNA 3 shows minor RT improvements; for example, the RX 7800 XT matches the RX 6800 XT in rasterization but is 10% faster in DXR performance.
Intel’s Arc A7 series presents a balanced performance profile, with the A750 outperforming the RTX 3060 overall. Driver optimizations have significantly improved Minecraft performance on Arc GPUs, aligning it with other DXR results.
DLSS significantly enhances ray tracing performance on NVIDIA cards. DLSS Quality mode boosted the RTX 4090’s 4K ultra ray tracing performance by 78% in our tests. While DLSS 3 frame generation offers further FPS increases (30% to 100%), caution is advised due to potential latency and visual artifacts associated with frame generation.
In ray tracing benchmarks, the RTX 4090 with DLSS 2 is nearly four times faster than AMD’s RX 7900 XTX. AMD’s FSR 2 and FSR 3 technologies aim to bridge this gap, and AMD is actively increasing adoption. However, FSR still trails DLSS in game support and overall image quality. Only two games in our DXR test suite support FSR2, while all support DLSS2, and one supports DLSS3.
Without upscaling, even AMD’s top GPUs struggle to maintain 60 fps at 1080p ultra ray tracing settings, achieving playable 40–50 fps averages at 1440p. Native 4K ray tracing remains challenging for most GPUs, with only the RTX 3090 Ti and above exceeding 30 fps in our composite score, and even these cards fall short in some individual games.
AMD’s FSR 3 frame generation, like DLSS3, introduces latency. AMD’s Anti-Lag+ technology mitigates this, but it’s AMD GPU-exclusive, potentially increasing latency on non-AMD cards. FSR 3 performance varies across games, demonstrating excellent results in some titles like Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora but falling short in others like Forspoken and Immortals of Aveum.
Mid-range GPUs like the RTX 3070 and RX 6700 XT are generally limited to 1080p ultra ray tracing, while entry-level DXR-capable GPUs struggle even at 1080p medium. The RX 6500 XT, for example, delivers single-digit frame rates in most ray tracing tests, with Control failing to run at medium settings due to VRAM limitations (requiring at least 6GB VRAM for ray tracing in Control).
Intel’s Arc A380 surprisingly outperforms the RX 6500 XT in ray tracing, despite having fewer RT units (8 vs. AMD’s 16 Ray Accelerators). Arc architecture shows promise in ray tracing, but performance is bottlenecked by the limited number of RTUs. Even the top-tier Arc A770 with 32 RTUs only marginally surpasses the RTX 3060 in DXR performance, highlighting the need for more RT resources for substantial ray tracing gains. Arc A750 and higher models outperform the RX 6750 XT in DXR, further illustrating RDNA 2’s ray tracing limitations compared to NVIDIA and even Intel’s architectures.
Comparing NVIDIA RTX generations, the RTX 2060, the slowest 20-series GPU, slightly outperforms the newer RTX 3050. However, the RTX 2080 Ti, the 20-series flagship, trails the RTX 3070. While the RTX 2080 Ti offered double the performance of the RTX 2060, the RTX 3090 delivers approximately triple the performance of the RTX 3050, showcasing notable generational scaling within NVIDIA’s RTX lineup.
Test System and How We Test for GPU Benchmarks
Our GPU testing employs several PC configurations. Our current 2022–2024 testbed utilizes an Alder Lake platform, while previous testing used a Coffee Lake and Z390 system. The latest charts (below) are based on a Core i9-13900K system with an updated game list. Detailed PC specifications are provided below:
Tom’s Hardware 2022–2024 GPU Testbed
- Intel Core i9-12900K
- MSI Pro Z690-A WiFi DDR4
- Corsair 2x16GB DDR4-3600 CL16
- Crucial P5 Plus 2TB
- Cooler Master MWE 1250 V2 Gold
- Cooler Master PL360 Flux
- Cooler Master HAF500
- Windows 11 Pro 64-bit
Tom’s Hardware 2020–2021 GPU Testbed
- Intel Core i9-9900K
- Corsair H150i Pro RGB
- MSI MEG Z390 Ace
- Corsair 2x16GB DDR4-3200
- XPG SX8200 Pro 2TB
- Windows 10 Pro (21H1)
Our testing methodology is consistent across all GPUs. We perform a warm-up benchmark run followed by at least two benchmark passes for each setting and resolution combination. Consistent results (within 0.5% variance) lead to using the faster run. Larger discrepancies prompt additional testing to determine typical performance.
We rigorously analyze data for anomalies. For example, RTX 3070 Ti, RTX 3070, and RTX 3060 Ti performance should fall within a predictable range, with consistent performance deltas between them. Outliers exceeding 10% trigger retesting to ensure result accuracy.
Given the time-intensive nature of GPU testing, driver updates and game patches inevitably emerge, potentially affecting performance. We periodically retest representative cards to validate our results and re-benchmark affected games and GPUs as needed. We may also incorporate new, popular, and benchmark-friendly games into our test suite, adhering to established selection criteria.
GPU Benchmarks: Individual Game Charts
While summary tables provide an overview, individual game charts offer granular performance insights for both standard and ray tracing tests. These charts are streamlined to include recent GPUs for clarity and utilize our updated test PC, reflecting slight performance variations from the summary tables due to newer, more relevant tests.
These charts are up to date as of November 11, 2024.
GPU Benchmarks — 1080p Medium
Image 1 of 22
Image 2 of 22
Image 3 of 22
Image 4 of 22
Image 5 of 22
Image 6 of 22
Image 7 of 22
Image 8 of 22
Image 9 of 22
Image 10 of 22
Image 11 of 22
Image 12 of 22
Image 13 of 22
Image 14 of 22
Image 15 of 22
Image 16 of 22
Image 17 of 22
Image 18 of 22
Image 19 of 22
Image 20 of 22
Image 21 of 22
Image 22 of 22
GPU Benchmarks — 1080p Ultra
Image 1 of 22
Image 2 of 22
Image 3 of 22
Image 4 of 22
Image 5 of 22
Image 6 of 22
Image 7 of 22
Image 8 of 22
Image 9 of 22
Image 10 of 22
Image 11 of 22
Image 12 of 22
Image 13 of 22
Image 14 of 22
Image 15 of 22
Image 16 of 22
Image 17 of 22
Image 18 of 22
Image 19 of 22
Image 20 of 22
Image 21 of 22
Image 22 of 22
GPU Benchmarks — 1440p Ultra
Image 1 of 22
Image 2 of 22
Image 3 of 22
Image 4 of 22
Image 5 of 22
Image 6 of 22
Image 7 of 22
Image 8 of 22
Image 9 of 22
Image 10 of 22
Image 11 of 22
Image 12 of 22
Image 13 of 22
Image 14 of 22
Image 15 of 22
Image 16 of 22
Image 17 of 22
Image 18 of 22
Image 19 of 22
Image 20 of 22
Image 21 of 22
Image 22 of 22
GPU Benchmarks — 4K Ultra
Image 1 of 22
Image 2 of 22
Image 3 of 22
Image 4 of 22
Image 5 of 22
Image 6 of 22
Image 7 of 22
Image 8 of 22
Image 9 of 22
Image 10 of 22
Image 11 of 22
Image 12 of 22
Image 13 of 22
Image 14 of 22
Image 15 of 22
Image 16 of 22
Image 17 of 22
Image 18 of 22
Image 19 of 22
Image 20 of 22
Image 21 of 22
Image 22 of 22
GPU Benchmarks — Power, Clocks, and Temperatures
While performance is key, power consumption and thermal characteristics are also vital considerations. Below are charts detailing power, clock speeds, and temperatures for the GPUs we tested.
Image 1 of 4
Image 2 of 4
Image 3 of 4
Image 4 of 4
Image 1 of 4
Image 2 of 4
Image 3 of 4
Image 4 of 4
Image 1 of 4
Image 2 of 4
Image 3 of 4
Image 4 of 4
For legacy GPU hierarchy data, please visit page two. For comments or discussion, please join our forums.
Choosing a Graphics Card
Selecting the right graphics card depends on your needs and budget. This GPU benchmarks hierarchy provides a comprehensive comparison of GPUs spanning four generations. The top-performing cards are powered by NVIDIA Ada Lovelace and AMD RDNA 3 architectures. AMD GPUs excel in rasterization, while NVIDIA cards lead in ray tracing, further enhanced by technologies like DLSS. While AMD’s FSR2 is a viable alternative, DLSS often offers superior image quality and wider game support, making NVIDIA cards particularly compelling for gamers prioritizing ray tracing fidelity. With GPU prices becoming more reasonable, now is an opportune time to consider upgrading, especially if you are looking to compare NVIDIA cards and make an informed purchase.
Gaming isn’t the only GPU application; many professional applications leverage GPU compute. Our full GPU reviews include professional GPU benchmarks. Generally, a strong gaming GPU translates to strong performance in GPU-intensive professional workloads. High-end cards are ideal for high-resolution, high-refresh-rate gaming with maxed-out settings and demanding content creation tasks. Mid-range and lower-tier cards require settings adjustments to achieve acceptable performance in games and GPU benchmarks.
For optimal gaming performance, remember the CPU. Even the best GPU can be bottlenecked by an underpowered CPU. Refer to our Best CPUs for gaming and CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy to ensure balanced system performance tailored to your gaming aspirations.
- 1
- 2
Current page: GPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2025
Next Page 2020-2021 and Legacy GPU Benchmarks Hierarchy
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom’s Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom’s Hardware’s best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
TOPICS
Jarred Walton
Jarred Walton is a senior editor at Tom’s Hardware focusing on everything GPU. He has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge ‘3D decelerators’ to today’s GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance.
