(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
When you’re looking to Display Card Compare options, understanding the performance hierarchy of graphics processing units (GPUs) is crucial. Whether you’re a hardcore gamer chasing the highest frame rates, a content creator tackling demanding video editing, or an AI enthusiast experimenting with Stable Diffusion, the right display card is paramount. At compare.edu.vn, we specialize in providing expert comparisons, and this comprehensive guide will serve as your ultimate resource to display card compare and choose the perfect GPU. Tom’s Hardware, renowned for its exhaustive benchmarks, consistently tests both current and previous generation GPUs, including all of the best graphics cards. While even the best CPUs for Gaming are important, your graphics card is the primary driver of performance in visually intensive tasks.
The GPU market saw a significant refresh earlier this year with Nvidia’s launch of the RTX 4070 Super, RTX 4070 Ti Super, and RTX 4080 Super. AMD also released the RX 7600 XT and the RX 7900 GRE in the US market. Looking ahead, major architectural shifts are anticipated with the arrival of Nvidia Blackwell RTX 50-series, Intel Battlemage, and AMD RDNA 4 GPUs, all rumored for late 2024 or early 2025. These upcoming releases will undoubtedly reshape the GPU hierarchy once again.
Anticipating these advancements, we at compare.edu.vn are continuously refining our GPU testing methodologies. We’re planning a significant overhaul of our benchmark suite, incorporating new games and transitioning to a new testing platform. Following the Core i9-13900K issues encountered earlier, we are considering the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D for our future testbed. This transition will necessitate a comprehensive retesting of all GPUs to maintain the accuracy and relevance of our display card compare data. For the time being, our latest reviews utilize the 13900K platform with an expanded game selection, and these results are reflected in the performance charts below.
Our GPU hierarchy is presented in two sections: rasterization performance and ray tracing performance. Rasterization, the traditional rendering method, is covered first, followed by a ray tracing benchmark hierarchy. Ray tracing, a more advanced rendering technique requiring specialized GPUs, is supported by AMD’s RX 7000/6000 series, Intel’s Arc GPUs, and Nvidia’s RTX cards. All benchmark results are obtained at native resolution without any upscaling technologies like DLSS, FSR, or XeSS, ensuring a direct display card compare based on raw performance.
Nvidia’s current RTX 40-series cards are built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, introducing features like DLSS 3 Frame Generation and Nvidia DLSS 3.5 Ray Reconstruction. AMD’s RDNA 3 architecture powers the RX 7000 series, offering a wide range of desktop GPUs. Intel’s Arc Alchemist architecture marks Intel’s entry as a third major player in the dedicated GPU market, competing effectively in the midrange segment.
For historical context, page two of the original article contains our 2020–2021 benchmark data using an older test suite on a Core i9-9900K system. This data is no longer actively updated but serves as a valuable reference point for previous generation GPUs. A legacy GPU hierarchy, sorted by theoretical performance without benchmark data, is also available for broader comparisons.
The performance rankings in the following tables are derived from our comprehensive GPU gaming benchmarks at 1080p “ultra” and 1080p “medium” settings. Factors like price, graphics card power consumption, efficiency, and specific features are not considered in these rankings, focusing purely on performance for a clear display card compare. The 2024 results are based on an Alder Lake Core i9-12900K testbed. Let’s delve into the benchmarks and performance tables to help you display card compare effectively.
2025 GPU Benchmarks Ranking: Rasterization Performance
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
For our latest GPU benchmarks, we’ve rigorously tested nearly every GPU released in the last seven years, along with select older models. Benchmarks were conducted at 1080p medium, 1080p ultra, and, where applicable, at 1440p ultra and 4K ultra settings. The tables are primarily sorted by 1080p ultra results, providing a comprehensive display card compare across various performance tiers. All scores are normalized relative to 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 across several generations at 1080p ultra. Swipe through the gallery to view charts for 1080p medium, 1440p, and 4K ultra settings, allowing for a detailed display card compare at different resolutions. While some niche cards (e.g., GT 1030, RX 550, and certain Titan models) are not explicitly charted, the tables below include data for a broader range of older GPUs.
Our standard GPU benchmark suite comprises eight demanding 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 these eight games, ensuring balanced weighting. Links to the original reviews for each GPU are provided in the specifications column for further in-depth analysis.
Rasterization GPU Hierarchy: 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 charts at 1080p ultra, its dominance truly shines at 1440p and 4K resolutions. At 1080p ultra, it offers a marginal 2% performance increase over the RTX 4080 Super, but this gap expands to 9% at 1440p and a significant 25% at 4K. It’s important to note that our fps scores incorporate both average and minimum frame rates, with a greater emphasis on average fps for a balanced display card compare.
This table excludes ray tracing and DLSS results to ensure a fair display card compare across all generations of graphics cards, as DLSS is exclusive to RTX cards (and DLSS 3 to RTX 40-series). For those interested in upscaling performance, our RTX 4070 review includes DLSS 2/3 and FSR 2 upscaling benchmarks.
The RTX 4090 commands a premium price, yet its performance leap justifies the cost, particularly compared to the previous generation RTX 3090. Unlike the 3090, which offered incremental gains over the 3080, the 4090 represents a substantial performance upgrade, driven by increased core counts, clock speeds, and power limits. However, the RTX 4090 faces two primary challenges: limited availability at MSRP due to AI sector demand and concerns regarding its 450W power draw via 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 pronounced at 1080p, highlighting the importance of system balance when you display card compare. Our upcoming testbed upgrade will address these CPU limitations, with updated results from our 13900K testing included in the charts at the end of this article.
(Image credit: Intel)
Beyond the latest AMD and Nvidia releases, the RX 6000- and RTX 30-series GPUs remain viable options. If you own one of these cards, upgrading might not be immediately necessary. Intel’s Arc GPUs also warrant consideration.
Our ongoing testing and driver updates have resolved previous anomalies with Arc GPUs. While efficiency is not their strong suit, the A750 offers compelling performance for its price, making it a noteworthy contender when you display card compare budget-friendly options.
Looking at older generations, the RTX 20-series and GTX 16-series cards, alongside the RX 5000-series, are positioned across the performance spectrum. Generally, newer architectures offer a performance uplift equivalent to one or two “model upgrades.” For instance, the RTX 2080 Super performs slightly below the RTX 3060 Ti, while the RX 5700 XT closely matches the newer and more affordable RX 6600 XT, demonstrating the value of display card compare across generations.
Older games at ultra settings expose the limitations of GPUs with less than 4GB of VRAM. While 4GB VRAM was once adequate, today, 8GB is the minimum recommendation, with 12GB or more preferred 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, impacting their overall scores, even though they perform better at 1080p medium.
Now, let’s transition to the ray tracing performance hierarchy for a different perspective on display card compare.
(Image credit: Techland)
2025 Ray Tracing GPU Benchmarks Ranking
Enabling ray tracing, especially in demanding games within our DXR test suite, can dramatically reduce frame rates. Our ray tracing benchmarks are conducted at “medium” and “ultra” settings. “Medium” typically involves using medium graphics presets with ray tracing effects enabled (set to “medium” or “on” where applicable), while “ultra” maximizes all ray tracing options.
Due to the performance demands of ray tracing, these results are sorted by 1080p medium scores. Lower-end cards like the RX 6500 XT, RX 6400, and Arc A380 struggle with ray tracing even at these settings, rendering higher resolution testing impractical. However, we include 1080p ultra results for a more comprehensive display card compare across different ray tracing tiers.
Our ray tracing benchmark suite includes five titles utilizing the DirectX 12 / DX12 Ultimate API: Bright Memory Infinite, Control Ultimate Edition, Cyberpunk 2077, Metro Exodus Enhanced, and Minecraft. The presented fps score is the geometric mean of these five games, scaled relative to the RTX 4090, the fastest GPU in this test.
For a glimpse into the future of ray tracing, explore our Alan Wake 2 benchmarks, where full path tracing pushes even high-end GPUs to their limits, even with upscaling. However, it’s important to note that games where ray tracing significantly enhances visuals remain relatively limited. For most titles, rasterization remains a more practical rendering approach.
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Ray Tracing GPU Hierarchy: Performance Analysis
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 further solidifies its performance lead in ray tracing. Nvidia’s Ada Lovelace architecture incorporates significant ray tracing enhancements, evident in these results. While technologies like SER, OMM, and DMM offer further ray tracing performance potential, and DLSS 3 provides additional upscaling benefits, DLSS 3’s frame generation can introduce latency.
For a glimpse into extreme ray tracing scenarios, Cyberpunk 2077‘s RT Overdrive mode and Alan Wake 2, both featuring full path tracing, showcase future rendering possibilities and the growing importance of upscaling and frame generation. Black Myth: Wukong also incorporates full ray tracing, indicating a trend towards more demanding visual fidelity.
Even at 1080p medium ray tracing settings, the RTX 4090 outperforms the RTX 3090 Ti by a substantial 41%. This lead expands to 53% at 1080p ultra and nearly 64% at 1440p, demonstrating the generational performance leap. Nvidia’s claim of “2x to 4x faster than the RTX 3090 Ti” with DLSS 3 is supported by our findings; even without DLSS 3, the 4090 is 72% faster at 4K ray tracing. This starkly highlights the performance differences when you display card compare top-tier GPUs for ray tracing workloads.
AMD’s approach to ray tracing prioritizes rasterization performance and cost-effectiveness through chiplet designs in RDNA 3 GPUs. Consequently, AMD’s ray tracing performance lags behind Nvidia. The RX 7900 XTX roughly matches Nvidia’s previous-gen RTX 3080 12GB, placing it barely ahead of the RTX 4070. While RDNA 3 offers minor RT performance improvements, as seen with the RX 7800 XT’s 10% DXR performance gain over the RX 6800 XT (despite similar rasterization performance), AMD still trails Nvidia in ray tracing capabilities, a key factor when you display card compare GPUs for ray-traced games.
Intel’s Arc A7-series GPUs offer a balanced performance profile, with the A750 surpassing the RTX 3060 overall. With driver optimizations, Arc GPUs now deliver consistent ray tracing performance.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
DLSS Quality mode significantly boosts ray tracing performance on the RTX 4090, as detailed in our review. At 4K ultra settings, DLSS Quality improves performance by 78%. DLSS 3 frame generation further enhances frame rates, but its perceived benefit during gameplay can be less pronounced due to added latency.
Overall, with DLSS 2, the RTX 4090 in our ray tracing tests is nearly four times faster than AMD’s RX 7900 XTX. While AMD’s FSR 2 and FSR 3 offer upscaling alternatives and AMD is actively increasing adoption, DLSS maintains an advantage in game support and image quality. Currently, all games in our DXR suite support DLSS2, with one also supporting DLSS3, while only two support FSR2, highlighting the ecosystem differences when you display card compare features.
Without upscaling, AMD’s top GPUs struggle to consistently exceed 60 fps at 1080p ultra ray tracing, although 1440p remains playable at 40–50 fps. Native 4K ray tracing remains challenging for most GPUs, with only the RTX 3090 Ti and above consistently surpassing 30 fps in our composite score.
AMD’s FSR 3 frame generation, like DLSS3, introduces latency and requires Anti-Lag+ integration for optimal performance on AMD GPUs. Non-AMD cards may experience greater latency penalties with FSR 3. While FSR 3 shows promise in titles like Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora, its quality and latency remain inconsistent across games, making it a variable factor in display card compare decisions.
Midrange GPUs like the RTX 3070 and RX 6700 XT are generally limited to 1080p ultra ray tracing, while lower-tier DXR-capable GPUs barely manage 1080p medium. The RX 6500 XT struggles even at 1080p medium, with single-digit frame rates in most tests, and some games failing to run at these settings (Control requires at least 6GB VRAM for ray tracing).
Intel’s Arc A380 surprisingly outperforms the RX 6500 XT in ray tracing, despite having fewer RTUs (8 vs. 16 Ray Accelerators). Intel’s deep dive into Arc ray tracing hardware indicates decent RT efficiency, but limited RTU counts restrict overall performance. The top-end A770, with only 32 RTUs, barely surpasses the RTX 3060 in DXR performance. However, Arc A750 and above cards often outperform AMD’s RX 6750 XT in DXR, highlighting RDNA 2’s ray tracing limitations when you display card compare architectures.
Comparing Nvidia’s RTX generations, the older RTX 2060 outperforms the newer RTX 3050, while the RTX 2080 Ti lags slightly behind the RTX 3070. The performance scaling is notable, with the RTX 2080 Ti offering roughly double the performance of the 2060, while the RTX 3090 delivers about triple the performance of the 3050, demonstrating generational improvements in display card compare.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Test System and Benchmarking Methodology for GPU Comparisons
Our GPU benchmarks are conducted using multiple test PCs. The current 2022–2024 configuration utilizes an Alder Lake platform, while our previous testbed employed Coffee Lake and Z390. The latest charts (below) are based on a Core i9-13900K system with an updated game list. Detailed PC specifications 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 methodology involves a warm-up pass followed by at least two benchmark runs for each setting and resolution combination. Consistent results (within 0.5% variance) lead to using the faster run; discrepancies prompt additional testing to ensure accurate performance assessment, crucial for reliable display card compare data.
We meticulously analyze all data for anomalies, ensuring performance consistency across GPU tiers. For example, RTX 3070 Ti, RTX 3070, and RTX 3060 Ti performance should align within a narrow range. Outliers trigger retesting to validate results.
Given the time-intensive nature of GPU testing, driver updates and game patches are inevitable. We periodically retest sample cards to maintain result validity and re-benchmark affected games and GPUs as needed. We also evaluate new game additions to our benchmark suite based on popularity and testing suitability, adhering to our benchmark selection criteria.
Individual Game Charts for Detailed GPU Benchmarks
The tables above provide a performance overview, but for granular display card compare, individual game charts are essential. These charts, updated as of November 11, 2024, feature recent GPUs tested on our new test PC. These charts provide resolution-specific performance breakdowns for each game in our benchmark suite.
These charts are up to date as of November 11, 2024.
GPU Benchmarks — 1080p Medium: Game-Specific Performance
Image 1 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 5 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 6 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 7 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 8 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 9 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 10 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 11 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 12 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 13 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 14 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 15 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 16 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 17 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 18 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 19 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 20 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 21 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 22 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
GPU Benchmarks — 1080p Ultra: Game-Specific Performance
Image 1 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 5 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 6 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 7 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 8 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 9 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 10 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 11 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 12 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 13 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 14 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 15 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 16 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 17 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 18 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 19 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 20 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 21 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 22 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
GPU Benchmarks — 1440p Ultra: Game-Specific Performance
Image 1 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 5 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 6 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 7 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 8 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 9 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 10 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 11 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 12 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 13 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 14 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 15 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 16 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 17 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 18 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 19 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 20 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 21 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 22 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
GPU Benchmarks — 4K Ultra: Game-Specific Performance
Image 1 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 5 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 6 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 7 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 8 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 9 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 10 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 11 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 12 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 13 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 14 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 15 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 16 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 17 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 18 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 19 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 20 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 21 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 22 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
GPU Benchmarks — Power, Clocks, and Temperatures: Efficiency and Thermal Performance
While performance is paramount, power consumption and thermal characteristics are crucial factors when you display card compare. Here are charts detailing GPU power draw, clock speeds, and temperatures under load.
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
For legacy GPU hierarchy data, please visit page two. Join the GPU benchmark discussion on our forums to share your thoughts and experiences.
Choosing the Right Graphics Card: A Display Card Compare Guide
Which graphics card is right for you? Our GPU benchmarks hierarchy, featuring numerous GPUs from the past four generations, is designed to assist your display card compare process. The fastest cards predominantly belong to Nvidia’s Ada Lovelace and AMD RDNA 3 architectures](https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-rdna-3-gpu-architecture-deep-dive-the-ryzen-moment-for-gpus). AMD cards excel in rasterization but tend to lag in ray tracing, particularly when DLSS is enabled. However, AMD’s FSR2 offers a viable alternative. With GPU prices becoming more competitive, now is an opportune time to upgrade your display card.
Gaming is not the sole consideration. Many applications leverage GPU power for various tasks. We provide professional GPU benchmarks in our full GPU reviews, demonstrating that a strong gaming GPU typically translates to robust performance in GPU-intensive computational workloads. High-end GPUs enable high-resolution, high-frame-rate gaming with maxed-out settings and are equally capable in content creation tasks. Mid-range and lower-tier cards require settings adjustments to achieve acceptable performance in demanding games and benchmarks.
For gamers, CPU compatibility is crucial. Even the best GPU will be bottlenecked by an underpowered or outdated CPU. Consult our Best CPUs for gaming guide and CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy to ensure your CPU aligns with your desired gaming experience and complete your display card compare process effectively.
- 1
- 2
Current page: GPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2025
Next Page 2020-2021 and Legacy GPU Benchmarks Hierarchy
Stay Informed: Subscribe to the compare.edu.vn Newsletter
Get the latest in-depth reviews and comparisons from compare.edu.vn directly in your inbox.
TOPICS
Jarred Walton
Jarred Walton, Senior Editor at Tom’s Hardware, specializes in GPUs. A tech journalist since 2004, with experience at AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer, Jarred tracks GPU trends and is the go-to expert for game performance analysis, making him a valuable resource for your display card compare needs.
