(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU performance hierarchy chart for 2023, illustrating graphics card rankings based on benchmark data.
In the realm of PC performance, the graphics processing unit (GPU) stands as a critical determinant, especially when it comes to gaming, artificial intelligence workloads, and professional content creation. Whether you are immersed in the latest gaming titles, leveraging AI tools like Stable Diffusion, or engaged in demanding video editing tasks, the GPU often dictates the fluidity and speed of your experience. Even the best CPUs for gaming take a backseat when graphical prowess is paramount. Understanding and Comparing Gpu Performances is therefore essential for anyone looking to optimize their computing setup.
This comprehensive guide provides an in-depth look at the current GPU landscape, ranking graphics cards based on rigorous benchmarks. We delve into both current and previous generation GPUs, offering a performance hierarchy that assists in making informed decisions. From the best graphics cards available today to insights into future releases, this analysis is designed to keep you at the forefront of GPU technology.
Earlier this year marked a significant point in the GPU cycle with the refresh of current generation cards. Nvidia introduced the RTX 4070 Super, RTX 4070 Ti Super, and RTX 4080 Super, while AMD launched the RX 7600 XT and the US availability of the RX 7900 GRE. Looking ahead, the industry anticipates major shifts with the expected arrival of next-generation GPUs. The Nvidia Blackwell RTX 50-series, Intel Battlemage, and AMD RDNA 4 GPUs are all on the horizon, with widespread expectations for releases starting in late 2024 and ramping up into early 2025. These upcoming launches promise to redefine the GPU performance landscape, making the task of comparing GPU performances even more critical for consumers and professionals alike.
As we look towards the future, our benchmark methodologies are also evolving. We are planning a significant revamp of our GPU testing procedures, incorporating new games and transitioning to a new testing platform. Following issues encountered with the Core i9-13900K, we are considering the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D as our new testbed CPU, known for its exceptional gaming performance. This transition will necessitate a complete retesting of a wide range of GPUs. For the present, our evaluations utilize the 13900K platform with an expanded suite of games, the results of which are incorporated into the performance charts below.
Our GPU hierarchy is segmented into two primary categories: traditional rendering (rasterization) and ray tracing. The rasterization hierarchy provides a broad performance overview, while the ray tracing hierarchy focuses on GPUs capable of handling advanced lighting effects. All benchmark results are presented at native resolutions without the influence of upscaling technologies like DLSS, FSR, or XeSS, ensuring a direct comparison of raw GPU power.
Nvidia’s current RTX 40-series GPUs are built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, bringing innovations such as DLSS 3 Frame Generation and DLSS 3.5 Ray Reconstruction, enhancing both performance and visual fidelity in supported games. AMD’s RX 7000-series leverages the RDNA 3 architecture, offering a competitive stack of desktop GPUs. Intel, with its Arc Alchemist architecture, emerges as a third contender, particularly in the midrange GPU market, challenging previous generation offerings.
For historical context, our 2020–2021 benchmark data, using an older test suite on a Core i9-9900K system, is available on page two, providing a look back at previous generation GPU performance. Additionally, a legacy GPU hierarchy, sorted by theoretical performance, serves as a reference point for older cards.
The performance rankings presented are derived from comprehensive gaming benchmarks at 1080p “ultra” settings for the main suite and 1080p “medium” for the DXR (ray tracing) suite. Factors such as price, power consumption, efficiency, and specific features are not directly factored into these performance-based rankings. The current 2024 benchmark results are based on an Alder Lake Core i9-12900K testbed, providing a consistent platform for comparing GPU performances across a wide spectrum of cards. Let’s now delve into the benchmark results and performance tables.
GPU Benchmarks Ranking 2025
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Charts displaying GPU benchmarks hierarchy for various resolutions and settings, comparing performance across different graphics cards.
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Visual representation of GPU performance comparison, showcasing relative performance levels in benchmark tests.
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Graphical benchmarks illustrating GPU hierarchy, detailing performance metrics for different graphics processing units.
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Performance charts for comparing GPU capabilities, showing rankings and benchmark scores for a range of graphics cards.
For our most recent GPU benchmarking efforts, we have evaluated a vast array of GPUs released over the last seven years, along with select older models, testing at 1080p medium, 1080p ultra, and, where performance allows, 1440p ultra and 4K ultra settings. The GPUs are ranked in the subsequent table based on their 1080p ultra performance. All scores are normalized against the top-performing card at 1080p ultra, the RTX 4090, particularly evident at 4K and 1440p resolutions.
The summary chart above visually represents the relative performance of GPUs tested across multiple generations at 1080p ultra. The image gallery allows you to swipe through to view charts for 1080p medium, 1440p ultra, and 4K ultra settings. While some niche or very old cards might be absent (e.g., GT 1030, RX 550, certain Titan models), the hierarchy aims to be comprehensively representative. Detailed data for additional older GPUs is also included in the table below.
Our standard GPU benchmark suite comprises eight games: Borderlands 3 (DX12), Far Cry 6 (DX12), Flight Simulator (DX11 Nvidia, DX12 AMD/Intel), Forza Horizon 5 (DX12), Horizon Zero Dawn (DX12), Red Dead Redemption 2 (Vulkan), Total War Warhammer 3 (DX11), and Watch Dogs Legion (DX12). The presented fps score is the geometric mean of frame rates across these eight games, providing an equally weighted aggregate performance metric. For detailed specifications of each GPU, refer to the links provided in the table, leading to our original reviews.
GPU Rasterization Hierarchy: Key Performance Metrics
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 chart at 1080p ultra, its dominance truly emerges at higher resolutions, particularly 1440p and 4K. At 1080p ultra, it exhibits a marginal performance increase of less than 2% over the RTX 4080 Super. However, this gap widens significantly to 9% at 1440p and an impressive 25% at 4K resolution. It is important to note that the FPS metrics presented in our table integrate both average and minimum frame rates into a unified score, with average FPS weighted more heavily than 1% low FPS, providing a balanced view of performance consistency.
It’s crucial to remember that the rasterization performance table excludes ray tracing and DLSS results. This is intentional, ensuring a level playing field for direct comparing GPU performances across both current and older generation graphics cards. Since DLSS is primarily an Nvidia RTX technology (with DLSS 3 exclusive to RTX 40-series), including it would skew comparisons. For those interested in the impact of upscaling, our RTX 4070 review includes DLSS 2/3 and FSR 2 upscaling benchmarks, demonstrating how these technologies can enhance performance.
The RTX 4090, while leading in performance, comes with a premium price tag. Although its cost is substantial, it is arguably more justified than the previous generation RTX 3090. The 3090 offered only incremental performance gains over the 3080 at its launch, despite featuring double the VRAM. Nvidia has maximized the RTX 4090’s capabilities by significantly increasing core counts, clock speeds, and power limits. However, two key considerations for the 4090 are its limited availability at MSRP due to high demand, particularly from the AI sector, often pushing prices to $2,000 or higher, and the 450W power draw via the 16-pin connector, which raises some power management concerns.
Stepping down from the RTX 4090, the RTX 4080 Super and RX 7900 XTX exhibit a more competitive landscape, trading performance leadership depending on the resolution. At 1080p, CPU bottlenecks can limit the performance difference, while at higher resolutions, the cards’ inherent strengths become more apparent. We are in the process of transitioning to a new testbed, with current results from our Core i9-13900K testing integrated into the charts at the end of this article, reflecting our commitment to using the most relevant testing platforms for comparing GPU performances.
(Image credit: Intel) – Alt text: Intel Arc GPU logo, representing Intel’s entry into the dedicated graphics card market.
Beyond the latest offerings from AMD and Nvidia, the RX 6000- and RTX 30-series GPUs remain viable options, delivering solid performance. For users currently equipped with these cards, upgrading may not be immediately necessary. Intel’s Arc GPUs also occupy this performance tier and present an interesting dynamic.
Through continuous testing and driver updates, Intel has significantly improved the performance and stability of Arc GPUs. Issues previously encountered, such as with Minecraft, have been resolved. While Arc GPUs may not lead in power efficiency, the A750 in particular offers a compelling balance of performance and price.
Looking at previous generations, the RTX 20-series and GTX 16-series, along with the RX 5000-series, are positioned throughout the performance hierarchy. Generally, newer architectures offer a performance uplift equivalent to one or two “model upgrades.” For example, the RTX 2080 Super performs just below the RTX 3060 Ti, and the RX 5700 XT closely matches the newer, more budget-friendly RX 6600 XT.
Older GPUs with limited VRAM, especially 4GB or less, struggle significantly with modern games at ultra settings. The increasing demand for VRAM has made 4GB a bottleneck, and we now recommend a minimum of 8GB VRAM for modern gaming, with 12GB or more preferred for mainstream GPUs and 16GB+ for high-end cards. Older cards like the GTX 1060 3GB and GTX 1050 encountered issues running some of our tests, which slightly skews their benchmark results, despite performing relatively better at 1080p medium settings.
Let’s now shift our focus to the ray tracing performance hierarchy, examining how GPUs handle these demanding visual effects.
(Image credit: Techland) – Alt text: Dying Light 2 ray tracing settings comparison, showcasing the visual impact of ray tracing in gaming.
Ray Tracing GPU Benchmarks Ranking 2025
Enabling ray tracing, especially in graphically intensive games within our DXR test suite, can dramatically reduce frame rates. Our ray tracing benchmarks are conducted using “medium” and “ultra” settings. “Medium” typically corresponds to the game’s medium graphics preset with ray tracing effects enabled (set to “medium” if available, otherwise “on”). “Ultra” activates all ray tracing options at their maximum quality settings.
Due to the substantial performance overhead of ray tracing, the ray tracing hierarchy is sorted by 1080p medium scores. This is also because entry-level ray tracing capable cards like the RX 6500 XT, RX 6400, and Arc A380 struggle to deliver playable frame rates even at these settings. Testing beyond 1080p medium for these cards would be largely impractical, although 1080p ultra results are included in the charts for reference.
Our ray tracing benchmark suite includes five games: Bright Memory Infinite, Control Ultimate Edition, Cyberpunk 2077, Metro Exodus Enhanced, and Minecraft, all utilizing the DirectX 12 / DX12 Ultimate API. The FPS score is the geometric mean across these five games, and performance percentages are scaled relative to the top-performing GPU, the GeForce RTX 4090.
For a glimpse into the future of ray tracing, our Alan Wake 2 benchmarks demonstrate the extreme demands of full path tracing, pushing even high-end GPUs to their limits, even with upscaling. However, it’s important to note that the number of games where ray tracing significantly enhances visual quality remains limited. For most games, rasterization remains a more practical rendering approach.
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Ray tracing GPU benchmarks charts, comparing graphics card performance with ray tracing enabled at various settings.
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Visual benchmarks of GPU ray tracing performance, showcasing relative performance levels in ray-traced gaming environments.
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Ray tracing GPU hierarchy charts, detailing performance metrics specifically for ray tracing workloads across different graphics cards.
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Performance charts for comparing GPU ray tracing capabilities, showing rankings and benchmark scores under ray tracing conditions.
GPU Ray Tracing Hierarchy: Key Performance Metrics
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 |
The RTX 4090’s ray tracing performance is even more pronounced than its rasterization capabilities. Nvidia’s Ada Lovelace architecture incorporates significant ray tracing enhancements, which become evident in these benchmarks. Further performance gains in ray tracing are anticipated with technologies like SER, OMM, and DMM, along with DLSS 3, although the latter’s frame generation technology has its nuances, as generated frames do not incorporate new user inputs and can introduce latency.
For an extreme test of ray tracing capabilities, we benchmarked several high-performing GPUs using Cyberpunk 2077‘s RT Overdrive mode, featuring full path tracing, and Alan Wake 2, which also utilizes path tracing at higher settings. Games like Black Myth: Wukong are also emerging with full ray tracing support. These titles offer a preview of future gaming visuals and underscore the growing importance of upscaling and AI-driven techniques like frame generation.
Even at 1080p medium settings for DXR, the RTX 4090 outpaces all competitors, leading the previous generation RTX 3090 Ti by a substantial 41%. This lead expands to 53% at 1080p ultra and nearly 64% at 1440p. Nvidia’s pre-launch claims of the RTX 4090 being “2x to 4x faster than the RTX 3090 Ti,” factoring in DLSS 3 Frame Generation, are somewhat validated. Even without DLSS 3, the 4090 is 72% faster than the 3090 Ti at 4K resolution in ray tracing workloads.
AMD’s approach to DXR and ray tracing prioritizes rasterization performance improvements and cost-effective manufacturing through chiplet designs in RDNA 3 GPUs. Consequently, AMD’s ray tracing performance lags behind Nvidia. The top-tier RX 7900 XTX roughly matches Nvidia’s previous generation RTX 3080 12GB, placing it just ahead of the RTX 4070 in ray tracing scenarios. RDNA 3 architecture does bring some ray tracing performance enhancements, as seen with the RX 7800 XT, which, while matching the RX 6800 XT in rasterization, shows a 10% performance increase in DXR benchmarks.
Intel’s Arc A7-series GPUs demonstrate a balanced performance profile, with the A750 outperforming the RTX 3060 overall in ray tracing. With driver optimizations and specific settings adjustments, Minecraft performance on Arc GPUs is now consistent with other DXR results.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 Founders Edition graphics card, highlighting its high-end design and performance capabilities.
The impact of DLSS Quality mode on ray tracing performance with the RTX 4090 is detailed in our review, showing a performance boost of approximately 78% at 4K ultra. DLSS 3 frame generation further improves frame rates by 30% to 100% in our tests. However, caution is advised when interpreting FPS with frame generation enabled, as subjective gameplay smoothness may not always align with benchmark figures.
In summary, with DLSS 2 enabled, the RTX 4090 in our ray tracing test suite achieves nearly four times the performance of AMD’s RX 7900 XTX, highlighting a significant performance gap in ray tracing capabilities between the top GPUs from Nvidia and AMD. AMD’s FSR 2 and FSR 3 offer upscaling alternatives, and AMD is actively working to broaden their adoption. However, DLSS maintains an edge in both game support and overall image quality. Currently, all games in our DXR suite support DLSS 2, with one also supporting DLSS 3, while only two support FSR2.
Without FSR2, AMD’s fastest GPUs can achieve playable frame rates above 60 fps at 1080p ultra and remain reasonably playable at 1440p with 40–50 fps averages. However, native 4K ray tracing remains a challenge for most GPUs, with only the RTX 3090 Ti and higher models consistently surpassing the 30 fps threshold in our composite score, and even the 3090 Ti falls short in certain individual games.
AMD’s FSR 3 frame generation, similar to DLSS 3, introduces latency. AMD’s implementation requires Anti-Lag+ support in games utilizing FSR 3. Anti-Lag+ is exclusive to AMD GPUs, potentially resulting in higher latency penalties on non-AMD cards. Our testing in games like Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora shows FSR 3 performing effectively, but results can vary significantly across different titles, with variable quality and latency experienced in games like Forspoken and Immortals of Aveum.
Midrange GPUs like the RTX 3070 and RX 6700 XT are generally capable of handling 1080p ultra ray tracing, but performance diminishes at higher resolutions. Lower-tier DXR-capable GPUs struggle even at 1080p medium, with the RX 6500 XT delivering single-digit frame rates in most of our ray tracing tests. Notably, Control requires a minimum of 6GB VRAM to enable ray tracing.
Intel’s Arc A380 surprisingly outperforms the RX 6500 XT in ray tracing, despite having fewer Ray Tracing Units (RTUs) compared to AMD’s Ray Accelerators. Intel’s detailed analysis of its ray tracing hardware indicates competitive ray tracing architecture, although the limited number of RTUs on current Arc GPUs restricts overall performance. The top-end Arc A770, with only 32 RTUs, slightly surpasses the RTX 3060 in DXR benchmarks, but its ray tracing capabilities are still constrained compared to high-end Nvidia and AMD cards. Arc A750 and higher models, however, outperform the RX 6750 XT in DXR performance, highlighting AMD’s RDNA 2 architecture’s relative weakness in ray tracing.
Examining generational performance within Nvidia RTX cards, the RTX 2060, the slowest 20-series GPU, slightly outperforms the newer RTX 3050. The RTX 2080 Ti, the 20-series flagship, falls slightly behind the RTX 3070. While the 2080 Ti offered roughly double the performance of the 2060, the RTX 3090 delivers approximately triple the performance of the RTX 3050, indicating significant generational performance scaling.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Tom’s Hardware GPU testbed setup, showcasing the components used for benchmarking graphics card performance.
Test System and GPU Benchmarks Methodology
Our GPU testing is conducted using several PC configurations. The latest 2022–2024 testbed utilizes an Alder Lake platform, while previous testing used a Coffee Lake Z390 system. The most current charts (below) are based on a Core i9-13900K system with an updated game selection. Detailed specifications of our test PCs are as follows:
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 protocol remains consistent across all graphics cards. We perform an initial benchmark run for GPU warm-up, followed by at least two benchmark passes for each setting and resolution combination. Consistent results (within 0.5% variance) validate the benchmark, with the faster run used for final data. Inconsistent results prompt additional test runs to ascertain typical performance.
Data anomalies are rigorously investigated. For instance, GPUs within a performance tier (e.g., RTX 3070 Ti, RTX 3070, RTX 3060 Ti) are expected to exhibit predictable performance deltas. Outliers exceeding 10% variance trigger retesting to ensure data accuracy.
Given the time-intensive nature of GPU testing, driver updates and game patches are inevitable. We periodically re-evaluate a selection of GPUs to confirm data validity and retest affected games and GPUs when necessary. New, popular, and benchmark-suitable games may also be integrated into our test suite, adhering to our criteria for good game benchmarks.
GPU Benchmarks: Individual Game Charts
The summary tables provide a high-level performance overview. For granular data, individual game charts are provided below for both standard and ray tracing tests. These charts focus on recent GPUs to maintain clarity and utilize our updated test PC, which may slightly alter performance metrics compared to the summary tables.
Charts are current as of November 11, 2024.
GPU Benchmarks — 1080p Medium
Image 1 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1080p Medium settings GPU game benchmarks, showing individual game performance charts for various graphics cards.
Image 2 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game performance charts at 1080p Medium settings for GPU comparison, detailing FPS in specific games.
Image 3 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU benchmark results at 1080p Medium, displaying performance in different games for a range of graphics cards.
Image 4 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1080p Medium game benchmarks, illustrating GPU performance across a selection of games for performance analysis.
Image 5 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Charts comparing GPU performance at 1080p Medium, showcasing FPS in individual games to evaluate graphics card capabilities.
Image 6 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU benchmarks for individual games at 1080p Medium, providing detailed performance data for graphics card comparisons.
Image 7 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Game-specific GPU performance charts at 1080p Medium settings, enabling detailed comparison of graphics card FPS in each game.
Image 8 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1080p Medium GPU gaming benchmarks, showing performance variations across different games for graphics card evaluation.
Image 9 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game benchmark charts at 1080p Medium, comparing GPU FPS performance in each tested game.
Image 10 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU performance in individual games at 1080p Medium, charts showing FPS for each graphics card in each game benchmarked.
Image 11 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1080p Medium settings game performance charts, comparing GPU FPS in individual game benchmarks for performance analysis.
Image 12 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU gaming benchmarks at 1080p Medium, individual game charts showing performance in FPS for graphics card comparison.
Image 13 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Game-by-game GPU performance at 1080p Medium, detailed benchmark charts for FPS comparison across different graphics cards.
Image 14 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1080p Medium game benchmarks, individual charts showing GPU FPS performance for each game tested.
Image 15 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU performance charts at 1080p Medium settings, displaying FPS in individual games for graphics card evaluation and comparison.
Image 16 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game GPU benchmarks at 1080p Medium, charts showing FPS performance for graphics card comparison in each game.
Image 17 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1080p Medium settings GPU game performance charts, comparing FPS in individual game benchmarks for graphics card analysis.
Image 18 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU gaming benchmarks at 1080p Medium, individual charts showing FPS for graphics card performance in each game tested.
Image 19 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Game-by-game GPU performance at 1080p Medium, detailed benchmark charts for FPS comparison across different graphics cards.
Image 20 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1080p Medium game benchmarks, individual charts showing GPU FPS performance for each game tested in the benchmark suite.
Image 21 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU performance charts at 1080p Medium settings, displaying FPS in individual games for detailed graphics card comparisons.
Image 22 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game GPU benchmarks at 1080p Medium, charts showing FPS performance for graphics card comparison across all tested games.
GPU Benchmarks — 1080p Ultra
Image 1 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1080p Ultra settings GPU game benchmarks, showcasing individual game performance charts for a range of graphics cards.
Image 2 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game performance charts at 1080p Ultra settings for GPU comparison, detailing FPS in specific games under high settings.
Image 3 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU benchmark results at 1080p Ultra, displaying performance in different games for a variety of graphics cards at maximum settings.
Image 4 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1080p Ultra game benchmarks, illustrating GPU performance across a selection of games at ultra settings for performance analysis.
Image 5 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Charts comparing GPU performance at 1080p Ultra, showcasing FPS in individual games to evaluate graphics card capabilities at high settings.
Image 6 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU benchmarks for individual games at 1080p Ultra, providing detailed performance data for graphics card comparisons under ultra settings.
Image 7 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Game-specific GPU performance charts at 1080p Ultra settings, enabling detailed comparison of graphics card FPS in each game at maximum quality.
Image 8 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1080p Ultra GPU gaming benchmarks, showing performance variations across different games for graphics card evaluation at ultra settings.
Image 9 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game benchmark charts at 1080p Ultra, comparing GPU FPS performance in each tested game at maximum settings.
Image 10 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU performance in individual games at 1080p Ultra, charts showing FPS for each graphics card in each game benchmarked at ultra settings.
Image 11 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1080p Ultra settings game performance charts, comparing GPU FPS in individual game benchmarks for performance analysis at maximum settings.
Image 12 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU gaming benchmarks at 1080p Ultra, individual charts showing FPS for graphics card comparison in each game at ultra settings.
Image 13 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Game-by-game GPU performance at 1080p Ultra, detailed benchmark charts for FPS comparison across different graphics cards at maximum settings.
Image 14 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1080p Ultra game benchmarks, individual charts showing GPU FPS performance for each game tested at ultra settings.
Image 15 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU performance charts at 1080p Ultra settings, displaying FPS in individual games for graphics card evaluation and comparison at maximum settings.
Image 16 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game GPU benchmarks at 1080p Ultra, charts showing FPS performance for graphics card comparison in each game at ultra settings.
Image 17 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1080p Ultra settings GPU game performance charts, comparing FPS in individual game benchmarks for graphics card analysis at maximum settings.
Image 18 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU gaming benchmarks at 1080p Ultra, individual charts showing FPS for graphics card performance in each game tested at ultra settings.
Image 19 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Game-by-game GPU performance at 1080p Ultra, detailed benchmark charts for FPS comparison across different graphics cards at maximum settings.
Image 20 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1080p Ultra game benchmarks, individual charts showing GPU FPS performance for each game tested in the benchmark suite at ultra settings.
Image 21 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU performance charts at 1080p Ultra settings, displaying FPS in individual games for detailed graphics card comparisons at maximum settings.
Image 22 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game GPU benchmarks at 1080p Ultra, charts showing FPS performance for graphics card comparison across all tested games at maximum settings.
GPU Benchmarks — 1440p Ultra
Image 1 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1440p Ultra settings GPU game benchmarks, showcasing individual game performance charts for various graphics cards at 1440p resolution.
Image 2 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game performance charts at 1440p Ultra settings for GPU comparison, detailing FPS in specific games at 1440p resolution.
Image 3 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU benchmark results at 1440p Ultra, displaying performance in different games for a range of graphics cards at 1440p resolution.
Image 4 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1440p Ultra game benchmarks, illustrating GPU performance across a selection of games at 1440p resolution for performance analysis.
Image 5 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Charts comparing GPU performance at 1440p Ultra, showcasing FPS in individual games to evaluate graphics card capabilities at 1440p resolution.
Image 6 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU benchmarks for individual games at 1440p Ultra, providing detailed performance data for graphics card comparisons at 1440p resolution.
Image 7 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Game-specific GPU performance charts at 1440p Ultra settings, enabling detailed comparison of graphics card FPS in each game at 1440p resolution.
Image 8 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1440p Ultra GPU gaming benchmarks, showing performance variations across different games for graphics card evaluation at 1440p resolution.
Image 9 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game benchmark charts at 1440p Ultra, comparing GPU FPS performance in each tested game at 1440p resolution.
Image 10 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU performance in individual games at 1440p Ultra, charts showing FPS for each graphics card in each game benchmarked at 1440p resolution.
Image 11 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1440p Ultra settings game performance charts, comparing GPU FPS in individual game benchmarks for performance analysis at 1440p resolution.
Image 12 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU gaming benchmarks at 1440p Ultra, individual charts showing FPS for graphics card comparison in each game at 1440p resolution.
Image 13 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Game-by-game GPU performance at 1440p Ultra, detailed benchmark charts for FPS comparison across different graphics cards at 1440p resolution.
Image 14 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1440p Ultra game benchmarks, individual charts showing GPU FPS performance for each game tested at 1440p resolution.
Image 15 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU performance charts at 1440p Ultra settings, displaying FPS in individual games for graphics card evaluation and comparison at 1440p resolution.
Image 16 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game GPU benchmarks at 1440p Ultra, charts showing FPS performance for graphics card comparison in each game at 1440p resolution.
Image 17 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1440p Ultra settings GPU game performance charts, comparing FPS in individual game benchmarks for graphics card analysis at 1440p resolution.
Image 18 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU gaming benchmarks at 1440p Ultra, individual charts showing FPS for graphics card performance in each game tested at 1440p resolution.
Image 19 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Game-by-game GPU performance at 1440p Ultra, detailed benchmark charts for FPS comparison across different graphics cards at 1440p resolution.
Image 20 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 1440p Ultra game benchmarks, individual charts showing GPU FPS performance for each game tested in the benchmark suite at 1440p resolution.
Image 21 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU performance charts at 1440p Ultra settings, displaying FPS in individual games for detailed graphics card comparisons at 1440p resolution.
Image 22 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game GPU benchmarks at 1440p Ultra, charts showing FPS performance for graphics card comparison across all tested games at 1440p resolution.
GPU Benchmarks — 4K Ultra
Image 1 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 4K Ultra settings GPU game benchmarks, showcasing individual game performance charts for a range of graphics cards at 4K resolution.
Image 2 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game performance charts at 4K Ultra settings for GPU comparison, detailing FPS in specific games at 4K resolution.
Image 3 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU benchmark results at 4K Ultra, displaying performance in different games for a variety of graphics cards at 4K resolution.
Image 4 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 4K Ultra game benchmarks, illustrating GPU performance across a selection of games at 4K resolution for performance analysis.
Image 5 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Charts comparing GPU performance at 4K Ultra, showcasing FPS in individual games to evaluate graphics card capabilities at 4K resolution.
Image 6 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU benchmarks for individual games at 4K Ultra, providing detailed performance data for graphics card comparisons at 4K resolution.
Image 7 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Game-specific GPU performance charts at 4K Ultra settings, enabling detailed comparison of graphics card FPS in each game at 4K resolution.
Image 8 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 4K Ultra GPU gaming benchmarks, showing performance variations across different games for graphics card evaluation at 4K resolution.
Image 9 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game benchmark charts at 4K Ultra, comparing GPU FPS performance in each tested game at 4K resolution.
Image 10 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU performance in individual games at 4K Ultra, charts showing FPS for each graphics card in each game benchmarked at 4K resolution.
Image 11 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 4K Ultra settings game performance charts, comparing GPU FPS in individual game benchmarks for performance analysis at 4K resolution.
Image 12 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU gaming benchmarks at 4K Ultra, individual charts showing FPS for graphics card comparison in each game at 4K resolution.
Image 13 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Game-by-game GPU performance at 4K Ultra, detailed benchmark charts for FPS comparison across different graphics cards at 4K resolution.
Image 14 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 4K Ultra game benchmarks, individual charts showing GPU FPS performance for each game tested at 4K resolution.
Image 15 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU performance charts at 4K Ultra settings, displaying FPS in individual games for graphics card evaluation and comparison at 4K resolution.
Image 16 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game GPU benchmarks at 4K Ultra, charts showing FPS performance for graphics card comparison in each game at 4K resolution.
Image 17 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 4K Ultra settings GPU game performance charts, comparing FPS in individual game benchmarks for graphics card analysis at 4K resolution.
Image 18 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU gaming benchmarks at 4K Ultra, individual charts showing FPS for graphics card performance in each game tested at 4K resolution.
Image 19 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Game-by-game GPU performance at 4K Ultra, detailed benchmark charts for FPS comparison across different graphics cards at 4K resolution.
Image 20 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: 4K Ultra game benchmarks, individual charts showing GPU FPS performance for each game tested in the benchmark suite at 4K resolution.
Image 21 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU performance charts at 4K Ultra settings, displaying FPS in individual games for detailed graphics card comparisons at 4K resolution.
Image 22 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Individual game GPU benchmarks at 4K Ultra, charts showing FPS performance for graphics card comparison across all tested games at 4K resolution.
GPU Benchmarks — Power, Clocks, and Temperatures
While performance is paramount, power consumption and thermal characteristics are also crucial considerations when comparing GPU performances. Below are charts detailing power draw, clock speeds, and temperatures for the tested GPUs.
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU power consumption benchmarks, charts showing power draw for different graphics cards under load during benchmark testing.
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU clock speed benchmarks, charts comparing clock frequencies achieved by various graphics cards during benchmark workloads.
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU temperature benchmarks, charts displaying thermal performance of different graphics cards, showing temperatures under benchmark load.
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Power, clock speed, and temperature benchmarks combined, charts showing comparative data for GPU power, clocks, and thermal performance.
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU power draw comparison chart, illustrating power consumption differences between various graphics cards during benchmark tests.
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU clock frequency comparison chart, showing clock speed variations across different graphics cards under benchmark load.
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU temperature comparison chart, detailing thermal performance differences among various graphics cards during benchmark testing.
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Combined benchmarks for power, clock speed, and temperature, charts showing comparative performance data for GPU power, clocks, and thermals.
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU power consumption benchmarks, charts illustrating power usage for different graphics cards during benchmark testing scenarios.
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU clock speed benchmarks, charts comparing clock frequencies for various graphics cards under benchmark workloads to analyze clock performance.
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: GPU temperature benchmarks, charts displaying thermal performance comparison for different graphics cards under benchmark stress testing.
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware) – Alt text: Benchmarks for power, clock speed, and temperature combined, charts showing comparative data for GPU power, clocks, and thermal characteristics.
For legacy GPU benchmarks, please refer to page two. For discussions and comments on the GPU benchmarks hierarchy, please visit our forums.
Choosing a Graphics Card
Selecting the right graphics card depends on your specific needs and budget. Our comprehensive GPU benchmarks hierarchy, encompassing numerous GPUs from the last four generations, is designed to assist in this decision. The highest-performing cards are currently from Nvidia’s Ada Lovelace and AMD’s RDNA 3 architectures. AMD GPUs excel in rasterization performance, while Nvidia cards typically lead in ray tracing, especially when DLSS is utilized. GPU prices have become more competitive, making now an opportune time to upgrade.
Gaming is a primary application for high-performance GPUs, but they are also vital for various professional applications. We provide professional GPU benchmarks in our detailed GPU reviews. A robust gaming GPU generally translates to strong performance in GPU-intensive computational workloads. Top-tier GPUs enable high-resolution, high-frame-rate gaming with maximum visual settings, and also facilitate demanding content creation tasks. Mid-range and lower-tier GPUs require adjusting settings to achieve acceptable performance in modern games and benchmarks.
For gaming-centric builds, the CPU is equally critical. Pairing a top-tier GPU with an underpowered or outdated CPU can limit overall performance. Consult our Best CPUs for gaming and CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy for balanced system builds.
- 1
- 2
Current page: GPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2025
Next Page 2020-2021 and Legacy GPU Benchmarks Hierarchy
Stay Informed: Subscribe to Tom’s Hardware Newsletter
Get the latest tech news and in-depth reviews from Tom’s Hardware directly in your inbox.
TOPICS
Jarred Walton
Jarred Walton, Senior Editor at Tom’s Hardware, specializes in GPU technology. With over 15 years of experience in tech journalism, including contributions to AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer, Jarred is a leading expert on graphics trends and gaming performance analysis.
