In the realm of PC gaming and demanding graphical tasks, the GPU card stands as the paramount determinant of performance. More so than even the best CPUs for gaming, your graphics processing unit dictates the visual fidelity and speed you experience in games, AI workloads like Stable Diffusion, and professional video editing. This comprehensive Gpu Card Compare and benchmarks hierarchy for 2025 analyzes the performance of both current and previous generation graphics cards, providing a detailed comparison to help you make informed decisions. Tom’s Hardware rigorously benchmarks a vast array of GPUs, encompassing all of the best graphics cards available, to bring you this definitive guide.
Earlier this year marked a significant point in the current GPU generation with the release of refreshed models. Nvidia introduced the RTX 4070 Super, RTX 4070 Ti Super, and RTX 4080 Super, while AMD launched the Radeon RX 7600 XT and the RX 7900 GRE in the US market. As we look towards the horizon, major architectural shifts are anticipated with the arrival of the Nvidia Blackwell RTX 50-series, Intel Battlemage, and AMD RDNA 4 GPUs. While widely expected in early 2025, there’s still a possibility some of these next-gen cards might debut before the close of 2024, potentially shaking up the gpu card compare landscape.
Looking ahead, we are on the cusp of a significant overhaul in our GPU testing methodology. This revamp includes incorporating new, visually demanding games and transitioning to a new testing platform. Following the instability issues encountered with the Core i9-13900K – which ultimately led to an RMA – we are now setting our sights on the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D for our updated testbed, a CPU renowned for its exceptional gaming performance. This transition will necessitate a complete re-evaluation of all GPUs in our hierarchy. Currently, our latest reviews utilize benchmarks from the 13900K platform augmented with additional game titles. These results are integrated into the charts presented below, offering the most up-to-date gpu card compare data available.
Our comprehensive GPU card compare hierarchy is divided into two key sections: rasterization performance and ray tracing performance. The rasterization hierarchy, using traditional rendering techniques, is presented first, followed by our dedicated ray tracing benchmarks hierarchy. It’s important to note that ray tracing benchmarks are exclusive to GPUs with ray tracing capabilities, including AMD’s RX 7000/6000 series, Intel’s Arc series, and Nvidia’s RTX series cards. All benchmark results are obtained at native resolution, without the application of DLSS, FSR, or XeSS upscaling or frame generation techniques, ensuring a direct gpu card compare on raw performance.
Nvidia’s current RTX 40-series GPUs are built upon the Ada Lovelace architecture, introducing features like DLSS 3 Frame Generation and DLSS 3.5 Ray Reconstruction. AMD’s RX 7000-series leverages the RDNA 3 architecture, offering a range of seven desktop cards. Intel’s Arc Alchemist architecture marks a significant entry, positioning itself as a competitor in the dedicated GPU market, particularly against previous generation midrange offerings.
For those seeking historical context, our 2020–2021 benchmark suite, featuring previous generation GPUs tested on a Core i9-9900K platform, is available on page two of this article. Additionally, a legacy GPU card compare hierarchy, without benchmarks but sorted by theoretical performance, is provided for reference.
The subsequent tables rank GPUs based purely on gaming benchmarks at 1080p “ultra” settings for the main suite and 1080p “medium” for the DXR suite. Factors such as price, graphics card power consumption, efficiency, and features are not considered in these performance rankings, focusing solely on providing a clear gpu card compare based on speed. The current 2024 results are derived from an Alder Lake Core i9-12900K testbed. Let’s now delve into the benchmarks and tables to explore the detailed gpu card compare data.
GPU Benchmarks Ranking 2025
Image 1 of 4
Alt text: GPU performance hierarchy chart displaying relative performance across resolutions.
Image 2 of 4
Alt text: Detailed GPU benchmark chart at 1080p medium settings for performance comparison.
Image 3 of 4
Alt text: 1440p ultra GPU gaming benchmark chart for high resolution gaming analysis.
Image 4 of 4
Alt text: 4K ultra GPU benchmark chart for extreme gaming performance comparison.
For our latest GPU card compare benchmarks, we’ve evaluated nearly every GPU released in the last seven years, along with select older models, at 1080p medium and 1080p ultra settings. The tables are organized based on 1080p ultra results. Where relevant, we also include benchmarks at 1440p ultra and 4K ultra resolutions. All performance scores are scaled relative to the top-performing card at 1080p ultra, which in our test suite is the RTX 4090, particularly at 4K and 1440p resolutions.
The summary chart above visually represents the relative performance of GPUs tested across several hardware generations at 1080p ultra. You can navigate through the image gallery to view charts for 1080p medium, 1440p, and 4K ultra settings. While some less common GPUs (e.g., GT 1030, RX 550, and certain Titan cards) are not explicitly charted, the tables below provide data for an even wider range of older GPUs, offering a more comprehensive gpu card compare.
Our standard GPU benchmarks hierarchy is derived from an eight-game test suite comprising 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 reported fps score represents the geometric mean of frame rates across these eight games, providing an overall performance metric for gpu card compare purposes. The “Specifications” column in the table provides direct links to our original in-depth reviews for each GPU, allowing for further research and detailed gpu card compare.
GPU Rasterization Hierarchy, Key Takeaways
Swipe to scroll horizontally
| Graphics Card | Lowest Price | 1080p Ultra | 1080p Medium | 1440p Ultra | 4K Ultra | Specifications (Links to Review) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GeForce RTX 4090 | $2,529 | 100.0% (154.1fps) | 100.0% (195.7fps) | 100.0% (146.1fps) | 100.0% (114.5fps) | AD102, 16384 shaders, 2520MHz, 24GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 1008GB/s, 450W |
| Radeon RX 7900 XTX | $869 | 96.7% (149.0fps) | 97.2% (190.3fps) | 92.6% (135.3fps) | 83.1% (95.1fps) | Navi 31, 6144 shaders, 2500MHz, 24GB GDDR6@20Gbps, 960GB/s, 355W |
| GeForce RTX 4080 Super | No Stock | 96.2% (148.3fps) | 98.5% (192.7fps) | 91.0% (133.0fps) | 80.3% (91.9fps) | AD103, 10240 shaders, 2550MHz, 16GB GDDR6X@23Gbps, 736GB/s, 320W |
| GeForce RTX 4080 | $1,699 | 95.4% (147.0fps) | 98.1% (192.0fps) | 89.3% (130.4fps) | 78.0% (89.3fps) | AD103, 9728 shaders, 2505MHz, 16GB [email protected], 717GB/s, 320W |
| Radeon RX 7900 XT | $649 | 93.4% (143.9fps) | 95.8% (187.6fps) | 86.1% (125.9fps) | 71.0% (81.2fps) | Navi 31, 5376 shaders, 2400MHz, 20GB GDDR6@20Gbps, 800GB/s, 315W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super | $899 | 92.3% (142.3fps) | 96.8% (189.4fps) | 83.5% (122.0fps) | 68.7% (78.6fps) | AD103, 8448 shaders, 2610MHz, 16GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 672GB/s, 285W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 Ti | $759 | 89.8% (138.3fps) | 95.7% (187.2fps) | 79.8% (116.5fps) | 63.8% (73.0fps) | AD104, 7680 shaders, 2610MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 504GB/s, 285W |
| Radeon RX 7900 GRE | No Stock | 88.1% (135.8fps) | 94.1% (184.3fps) | 78.0% (113.9fps) | 60.5% (69.3fps) | Navi 31, 5120 shaders, 2245MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 576GB/s, 260W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 Super | $609 | 87.1% (134.2fps) | 94.6% (185.1fps) | 75.2% (109.8fps) | 57.8% (66.1fps) | AD104, 7168 shaders, 2475MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 504GB/s, 220W |
| Radeon RX 6950 XT | $859 | 84.7% (130.5fps) | 91.7% (179.4fps) | 75.3% (110.1fps) | 58.6% (67.1fps) | Navi 21, 5120 shaders, 2310MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 576GB/s, 335W |
| GeForce RTX 3090 Ti | $1,899 | 84.7% (130.5fps) | 90.5% (177.1fps) | 77.1% (112.7fps) | 66.3% (75.9fps) | GA102, 10752 shaders, 1860MHz, 24GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 1008GB/s, 450W |
| Radeon RX 7800 XT | $489 | 83.9% (129.3fps) | 91.5% (179.1fps) | 72.4% (105.8fps) | 54.4% (62.3fps) | Navi 32, 3840 shaders, 2430MHz, 16GB [email protected], 624GB/s, 263W |
| GeForce RTX 3090 | $1,530 | 81.4% (125.5fps) | 88.9% (174.0fps) | 72.5% (106.0fps) | 61.8% (70.7fps) | GA102, 10496 shaders, 1695MHz, 24GB [email protected], 936GB/s, 350W |
| Radeon RX 6900 XT | $810 | 80.9% (124.6fps) | 89.6% (175.3fps) | 69.9% (102.1fps) | 53.5% (61.2fps) | Navi 21, 5120 shaders, 2250MHz, 16GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 300W |
| GeForce RTX 3080 Ti | $979 | 80.4% (123.9fps) | 87.8% (171.8fps) | 71.1% (103.9fps) | 60.1% (68.8fps) | GA102, 10240 shaders, 1665MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 912GB/s, 350W |
| Radeon RX 6800 XT | $1,150 | 79.6% (122.7fps) | 88.5% (173.2fps) | 67.8% (99.0fps) | 50.6% (57.9fps) | Navi 21, 4608 shaders, 2250MHz, 16GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 300W |
| GeForce RTX 3080 12GB | $829 | 79.2% (122.1fps) | 86.5% (169.4fps) | 70.0% (102.3fps) | 58.3% (66.7fps) | GA102, 8960 shaders, 1845MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 912GB/s, 400W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 | $549 | 79.2% (122.0fps) | 90.7% (177.5fps) | 66.9% (97.8fps) | 50.0% (57.2fps) | AD104, 5888 shaders, 2475MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 504GB/s, 200W |
| GeForce RTX 3080 | $788 | 76.0% (117.0fps) | 85.6% (167.6fps) | 66.0% (96.4fps) | 54.1% (62.0fps) | GA102, 8704 shaders, 1710MHz, 10GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 760GB/s, 320W |
| Radeon RX 7700 XT | $409 | 75.3% (116.1fps) | 87.7% (171.6fps) | 63.4% (92.7fps) | 45.0% (51.5fps) | Navi 32, 3456 shaders, 2544MHz, 12GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 432GB/s, 245W |
| Radeon RX 6800 | $849 | 74.4% (114.6fps) | 86.2% (168.7fps) | 61.0% (89.2fps) | 44.3% (50.7fps) | Navi 21, 3840 shaders, 2105MHz, 16GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 250W |
| GeForce RTX 3070 Ti | $699 | 67.5% (104.0fps) | 81.6% (159.8fps) | 56.7% (82.8fps) | 41.7% (47.7fps) | GA104, 6144 shaders, 1770MHz, 8GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 608GB/s, 290W |
| Radeon RX 6750 XT | $354 | 66.8% (102.9fps) | 82.6% (161.6fps) | 52.9% (77.2fps) | 37.4% (42.8fps) | Navi 22, 2560 shaders, 2600MHz, 12GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 432GB/s, 250W |
| GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB | $634 | 65.3% (100.6fps) | 82.6% (161.7fps) | 51.8% (75.7fps) | 36.4% (41.6fps) | AD106, 4352 shaders, 2535MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 160W |
| GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | $399 | 65.1% (100.4fps) | 81.8% (160.1fps) | 51.7% (75.6fps) | 34.6% (39.6fps) | AD106, 4352 shaders, 2535MHz, 8GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 160W |
| Titan RTX | Row 25 – Cell 1 | 64.5% (99.3fps) | 80.0% (156.6fps) | 54.4% (79.5fps) | 41.8% (47.8fps) | TU102, 4608 shaders, 1770MHz, 24GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 672GB/s, 280W |
| Radeon RX 6700 XT | $499 | 64.3% (99.1fps) | 80.8% (158.1fps) | 50.3% (73.4fps) | 35.3% (40.4fps) | Navi 22, 2560 shaders, 2581MHz, 12GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 384GB/s, 230W |
| GeForce RTX 3070 | $495 | 64.1% (98.8fps) | 79.1% (154.8fps) | 53.2% (77.7fps) | 38.8% (44.4fps) | GA104, 5888 shaders, 1725MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 220W |
| GeForce RTX 2080 Ti | Row 28 – Cell 1 | 62.5% (96.3fps) | 77.2% (151.0fps) | 51.8% (75.6fps) | 38.0% (43.5fps) | TU102, 4352 shaders, 1545MHz, 11GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 616GB/s, 250W |
| Radeon RX 7600 XT | $314 | 59.7% (91.9fps) | 77.3% (151.2fps) | 45.1% (65.9fps) | 32.4% (37.1fps) | Navi 33, 2048 shaders, 2755MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 190W |
| GeForce RTX 3060 Ti | $498 | 58.9% (90.7fps) | 75.0% (146.9fps) | 47.9% (70.0fps) | Row 30 – Cell 5 | GA104, 4864 shaders, 1665MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 200W |
| Radeon RX 6700 10GB | No Stock | 55.9% (86.1fps) | 74.4% (145.7fps) | 43.0% (62.8fps) | 28.7% (32.9fps) | Navi 22, 2304 shaders, 2450MHz, 10GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 320GB/s, 175W |
| GeForce RTX 2080 Super | Row 32 – Cell 1 | 55.8% (86.0fps) | 72.2% (141.3fps) | 45.2% (66.1fps) | 32.1% (36.7fps) | TU104, 3072 shaders, 1815MHz, 8GB [email protected], 496GB/s, 250W |
| GeForce RTX 4060 | $294 | 55.1% (84.9fps) | 72.7% (142.3fps) | 41.9% (61.2fps) | 27.8% (31.9fps) | AD107, 3072 shaders, 2460MHz, 8GB GDDR6@17Gbps, 272GB/s, 115W |
| GeForce RTX 2080 | Row 34 – Cell 1 | 53.5% (82.5fps) | 69.8% (136.7fps) | 43.2% (63.2fps) | Row 34 – Cell 5 | TU104, 2944 shaders, 1710MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 215W |
| Radeon RX 7600 | $259 | 53.2% (82.0fps) | 72.3% (141.4fps) | 39.2% (57.3fps) | 25.4% (29.1fps) | Navi 33, 2048 shaders, 2655MHz, 8GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 165W |
| Radeon RX 6650 XT | $254 | 50.4% (77.7fps) | 70.0% (137.1fps) | 37.3% (54.5fps) | Row 36 – Cell 5 | Navi 23, 2048 shaders, 2635MHz, 8GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 280GB/s, 180W |
| GeForce RTX 2070 Super | Row 37 – Cell 1 | 50.3% (77.4fps) | 66.2% (129.6fps) | 40.0% (58.4fps) | Row 37 – Cell 5 | TU104, 2560 shaders, 1770MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 215W |
| Intel Arc A770 16GB | $299 | 49.9% (76.9fps) | 59.4% (116.4fps) | 41.0% (59.8fps) | 30.8% (35.3fps) | ACM-G10, 4096 shaders, 2400MHz, 16GB [email protected], 560GB/s, 225W |
| Intel Arc A770 8GB | No Stock | 48.9% (75.3fps) | 59.0% (115.5fps) | 39.3% (57.5fps) | 29.0% (33.2fps) | ACM-G10, 4096 shaders, 2400MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 225W |
| Radeon RX 6600 XT | $259 | 48.5% (74.7fps) | 68.2% (133.5fps) | 35.7% (52.2fps) | Row 40 – Cell 5 | Navi 23, 2048 shaders, 2589MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 256GB/s, 160W |
| Radeon RX 5700 XT | Row 41 – Cell 1 | 47.6% (73.3fps) | 63.8% (124.9fps) | 36.3% (53.1fps) | 25.6% (29.3fps) | Navi 10, 2560 shaders, 1905MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 225W |
| GeForce RTX 3060 | Row 42 – Cell 1 | 46.9% (72.3fps) | 61.8% (121.0fps) | 36.9% (54.0fps) | Row 42 – Cell 5 | GA106, 3584 shaders, 1777MHz, 12GB GDDR6@15Gbps, 360GB/s, 170W |
| Intel Arc A750 | $239 | 45.9% (70.8fps) | 56.4% (110.4fps) | 36.7% (53.7fps) | 27.2% (31.1fps) | ACM-G10, 3584 shaders, 2350MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 225W |
| GeForce RTX 2070 | Row 44 – Cell 1 | 45.3% (69.8fps) | 60.8% (119.1fps) | 35.5% (51.8fps) | Row 44 – Cell 5 | TU106, 2304 shaders, 1620MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 175W |
| Radeon VII | Row 45 – Cell 1 | 45.1% (69.5fps) | 58.2% (113.9fps) | 36.3% (53.0fps) | 27.5% (31.5fps) | Vega 20, 3840 shaders, 1750MHz, 16GB [email protected], 1024GB/s, 300W |
| GeForce GTX 1080 Ti | Row 46 – Cell 1 | 43.1% (66.4fps) | 56.3% (110.2fps) | 34.4% (50.2fps) | 25.8% (29.5fps) | GP102, 3584 shaders, 1582MHz, 11GB GDDR5X@11Gbps, 484GB/s, 250W |
| GeForce RTX 2060 Super | Row 47 – Cell 1 | 42.5% (65.5fps) | 57.2% (112.0fps) | 33.1% (48.3fps) | Row 47 – Cell 5 | TU106, 2176 shaders, 1650MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 175W |
| Radeon RX 6600 | $189 | 42.3% (65.2fps) | 59.3% (116.2fps) | 30.6% (44.8fps) | Row 48 – Cell 5 | Navi 23, 1792 shaders, 2491MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 224GB/s, 132W |
| Intel Arc A580 | $169 | 42.3% (65.1fps) | 51.6% (101.1fps) | 33.4% (48.8fps) | 24.4% (27.9fps) | ACM-G10, 3072 shaders, 2300MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 185W |
| Radeon RX 5700 | Row 50 – Cell 1 | 41.9% (64.5fps) | 56.6% (110.8fps) | 31.9% (46.7fps) | Row 50 – Cell 5 | Navi 10, 2304 shaders, 1725MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 180W |
| Radeon RX 5600 XT | Row 51 – Cell 1 | 37.5% (57.8fps) | 51.1% (100.0fps) | 28.8% (42.0fps) | Row 51 – Cell 5 | Navi 10, 2304 shaders, 1750MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 336GB/s, 160W |
| Radeon RX Vega 64 | Row 52 – Cell 1 | 36.8% (56.7fps) | 48.2% (94.3fps) | 28.5% (41.6fps) | 20.5% (23.5fps) | Vega 10, 4096 shaders, 1546MHz, 8GB [email protected], 484GB/s, 295W |
| GeForce RTX 2060 | Row 53 – Cell 1 | 36.0% (55.5fps) | 51.4% (100.5fps) | 27.5% (40.1fps) | Row 53 – Cell 5 | TU106, 1920 shaders, 1680MHz, 6GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 336GB/s, 160W |
| GeForce GTX 1080 | Row 54 – Cell 1 | 34.4% (53.0fps) | 45.9% (89.9fps) | 27.0% (39.4fps) | Row 54 – Cell 5 | GP104, 2560 shaders, 1733MHz, 8GB GDDR5X@10Gbps, 320GB/s, 180W |
| GeForce RTX 3050 | $169 | 33.7% (51.9fps) | 45.4% (88.8fps) | 26.4% (38.5fps) | Row 55 – Cell 5 | GA106, 2560 shaders, 1777MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 224GB/s, 130W |
| GeForce GTX 1070 Ti | Row 56 – Cell 1 | 33.1% (51.1fps) | 43.8% (85.7fps) | 26.0% (37.9fps) | Row 56 – Cell 5 | GP104, 2432 shaders, 1683MHz, 8GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 256GB/s, 180W |
| Radeon RX Vega 56 | Row 57 – Cell 1 | 32.8% (50.6fps) | 43.0% (84.2fps) | 25.3% (37.0fps) | Row 57 – Cell 5 | Vega 10, 3584 shaders, 1471MHz, 8GB [email protected], 410GB/s, 210W |
| GeForce GTX 1660 Super | Row 58 – Cell 1 | 30.3% (46.8fps) | 43.7% (85.5fps) | 22.8% (33.3fps) | Row 58 – Cell 5 | TU116, 1408 shaders, 1785MHz, 6GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 336GB/s, 125W |
| GeForce GTX 1660 Ti | Row 59 – Cell 1 | 30.3% (46.6fps) | 43.3% (84.8fps) | 22.8% (33.3fps) | Row 59 – Cell 5 | TU116, 1536 shaders, 1770MHz, 6GB GDDR6@12Gbps, 288GB/s, 120W |
| GeForce GTX 1070 | Row 60 – Cell 1 | 29.0% (44.7fps) | 38.3% (75.0fps) | 22.7% (33.1fps) | Row 60 – Cell 5 | GP104, 1920 shaders, 1683MHz, 8GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 256GB/s, 150W |
| GeForce GTX 1660 | Row 61 – Cell 1 | 27.7% (42.6fps) | 39.7% (77.8fps) | 20.8% (30.3fps) | Row 61 – Cell 5 | TU116, 1408 shaders, 1785MHz, 6GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 192GB/s, 120W |
| Radeon RX 5500 XT 8GB | Row 62 – Cell 1 | 25.7% (39.7fps) | 36.8% (72.1fps) | 19.3% (28.2fps) | Row 62 – Cell 5 | Navi 14, 1408 shaders, 1845MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 224GB/s, 130W |
| Radeon RX 590 | Row 63 – Cell 1 | 25.5% (39.3fps) | 35.0% (68.5fps) | 19.9% (29.0fps) | Row 63 – Cell 5 | Polaris 30, 2304 shaders, 1545MHz, 8GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 256GB/s, 225W |
| GeForce GTX 980 Ti | Row 64 – Cell 1 | 23.3% (35.9fps) | 32.0% (62.6fps) | 18.2% (26.6fps) | Row 64 – Cell 5 | GM200, 2816 shaders, 1075MHz, 6GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 336GB/s, 250W |
| Radeon RX 580 8GB | Row 65 – Cell 1 | 22.9% (35.3fps) | 31.5% (61.7fps) | 17.8% (26.0fps) | Row 65 – Cell 5 | Polaris 20, 2304 shaders, 1340MHz, 8GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 256GB/s, 185W |
| Radeon R9 Fury X | Row 66 – Cell 1 | 22.9% (35.2fps) | 32.6% (63.8fps) | Row 66 – Cell 4 | Row 66 – Cell 5 | Fiji, 4096 shaders, 1050MHz, 4GB HBM2@2Gbps, 512GB/s, 275W |
| GeForce GTX 1650 Super | Row 67 – Cell 1 | 22.0% (33.9fps) | 34.6% (67.7fps) | 14.5% (21.2fps) | Row 67 – Cell 5 | TU116, 1280 shaders, 1725MHz, 4GB GDDR6@12Gbps, 192GB/s, 100W |
| Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB | Row 68 – Cell 1 | 21.6% (33.3fps) | 34.1% (66.8fps) | Row 68 – Cell 4 | Row 68 – Cell 5 | Navi 14, 1408 shaders, 1845MHz, 4GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 224GB/s, 130W |
| GeForce GTX 1060 6GB | Row 69 – Cell 1 | 20.8% (32.1fps) | 29.5% (57.7fps) | 15.8% (23.0fps) | Row 69 – Cell 5 | GP106, 1280 shaders, 1708MHz, 6GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 192GB/s, 120W |
| Radeon RX 6500 XT | $232 | 19.9% (30.6fps) | 33.6% (65.8fps) | 12.3% (18.0fps) | Row 70 – Cell 5 | Navi 24, 1024 shaders, 2815MHz, 4GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 144GB/s, 107W |
| Radeon R9 390 | Row 71 – Cell 1 | 19.3% (29.8fps) | 26.1% (51.1fps) | Row 71 – Cell 4 | Row 71 – Cell 5 | Grenada, 2560 shaders, 1000MHz, 8GB GDDR5@6Gbps, 384GB/s, 275W |
| GeForce GTX 980 | Row 72 – Cell 1 | 18.7% (28.9fps) | 27.4% (53.6fps) | Row 72 – Cell 4 | Row 72 – Cell 5 | GM204, 2048 shaders, 1216MHz, 4GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 256GB/s, 165W |
| GeForce GTX 1650 GDDR6 | Row 73 – Cell 1 | 18.7% (28.8fps) | 28.9% (56.6fps) | Row 73 – Cell 4 | Row 73 – Cell 5 | TU117, 896 shaders, 1590MHz, 4GB GDDR6@12Gbps, 192GB/s, 75W |
| Intel Arc A380 | $119 | 18.4% (28.4fps) | 27.7% (54.3fps) | 13.3% (19.5fps) | Row 74 – Cell 5 | ACM-G11, 1024 shaders, 2450MHz, 6GB [email protected], 186GB/s, 75W |
| Radeon RX 570 4GB | Row 75 – Cell 1 | 18.2% (28.1fps) | 27.4% (53.6fps) | 13.6% (19.9fps) | Row 75 – Cell 5 | Polaris 20, 2048 shaders, 1244MHz, 4GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 224GB/s, 150W |
| GeForce GTX 1650 | Row 76 – Cell 1 | 17.5% (27.0fps) | 26.2% (51.3fps) | Row 76 – Cell 4 | Row 76 – Cell 5 | TU117, 896 shaders, 1665MHz, 4GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 128GB/s, 75W |
| GeForce GTX 970 | Row 77 – Cell 1 | 17.2% (26.5fps) | 25.0% (49.0fps) | Row 77 – Cell 4 | Row 77 – Cell 5 | GM204, 1664 shaders, 1178MHz, 4GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 256GB/s, 145W |
| Radeon RX 6400 | $209 | 15.7% (24.1fps) | 26.1% (51.1fps) | Row 78 – Cell 4 | Row 78 – Cell 5 | Navi 24, 768 shaders, 2321MHz, 4GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 128GB/s, 53W |
| GeForce GTX 1050 Ti | Row 79 – Cell 1 | 12.9% (19.8fps) | 19.4% (38.0fps) | Row 79 – Cell 4 | Row 79 – Cell 5 | GP107, 768 shaders, 1392MHz, 4GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 112GB/s, 75W |
| GeForce GTX 1060 3GB | Row 80 – Cell 1 | Row 80 – Cell 2 | 26.8% (52.5fps) | Row 80 – Cell 4 | Row 80 – Cell 5 | GP106, 1152 shaders, 1708MHz, 3GB GDDR5@8Gbps, 192GB/s, 120W |
| GeForce GTX 1630 | Row 81 – Cell 1 | 10.9% (16.9fps) | 17.3% (33.8fps) | Row 81 – Cell 4 | Row 81 – Cell 5 | TU117, 512 shaders, 1785MHz, 4GB GDDR6@12Gbps, 96GB/s, 75W |
| Radeon RX 560 4GB | Row 82 – Cell 1 | 9.6% (14.7fps) | 16.2% (31.7fps) | Row 82 – Cell 4 | Row 82 – Cell 5 | Baffin, 1024 shaders, 1275MHz, 4GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 112GB/s, 60-80W |
| GeForce GTX 1050 | Row 83 – Cell 1 | Row 83 – Cell 2 | 15.2% (29.7fps) | Row 83 – Cell 4 | Row 83 – Cell 5 | GP107, 640 shaders, 1455MHz, 2GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 112GB/s, 75W |
| Radeon RX 550 4GB | Row 84 – Cell 1 | Row 84 – Cell 2 | 10.0% (19.5fps) | Row 84 – Cell 4 | Row 84 – Cell 5 | Lexa, 640 shaders, 1183MHz, 4GB GDDR5@7Gbps, 112GB/s, 50W |
| GeForce GT 1030 | Row 85 – Cell 1 | Row 85 – Cell 2 | 7.5% (14.6fps) | Row 85 – Cell 4 | Row 85 – Cell 5 | GP108, 384 shaders, 1468MHz, 2GB GDDR5@6Gbps, 48GB/s, 30W |
*: GPU couldn’t run all tests, so the overall score is slightly skewed at 1080p ultra.
While the RTX 4090 technically leads at 1080p ultra, its dominance truly shines at 1440p and 4K resolutions, solidifying its position as the top-tier gpu card. At 1080p ultra, it exhibits less than a 2% performance advantage over the RTX 4080 Super. However, this gap widens to 9% at 1440p and expands significantly to 25% at 4K. It’s also important to note that our fps scores are composite metrics, incorporating both average and minimum frame rates, with a greater emphasis placed on average fps for a more balanced gpu card compare.
It’s crucial to remember that the table above excludes any ray tracing or DLSS performance metrics. This is intentional, ensuring a fair gpu card compare across all generations of graphics cards using a consistent test suite and settings. Since DLSS is exclusive to RTX cards (and DLSS 3 to RTX 40-series), its inclusion would limit direct comparisons. For those interested in the impact of upscaling technologies, DLSS 2/3 and FSR 2 results are available in our RTX 4070 review, demonstrating how these modes can enhance performance and visual fidelity.
The RTX 4090 commands a premium price, yet it’s arguably a more compelling offering than its predecessor, the RTX 3090. While the 3090 offered only marginal performance gains over the 3080 at launch despite having double the VRAM, the RTX 4090 represents a substantial leap forward. Nvidia has maximized core counts, clock speeds, and power limits to push the 4090 to unprecedented performance levels. However, two significant drawbacks of the 4090 are its limited availability at MSRP due to high demand from the AI sector, often pushing prices to $2,000 or higher, and concerns surrounding the 450W power draw via the 16-pin connector.
Moving down the hierarchy from the RTX 4090, the RTX 4080 Super and RX 7900 XTX engage in a close contest, particularly at higher resolutions, while CPU limitations become more apparent at 1080p. Our upcoming testbed switch, utilizing the Ryzen 9 9800X3D, will provide updated performance insights, with current results from our 13900K testing shown in the charts at the end of this gpu card compare.
Beyond the latest offerings from AMD and Nvidia, the RX 6000- and RTX 30-series GPUs remain viable options, delivering solid performance. If you currently own one of these cards, upgrading may not be immediately necessary. Intel’s Arc GPUs also fall into this category, presenting an intriguing wildcard in the gpu card compare landscape.
Our ongoing testing and driver updates have refined the performance of Arc GPUs, enabling them to complete our full benchmark suite reliably. While Arc GPUs may not excel in power efficiency, the A750, in particular, offers a compelling balance of performance and price, making it a noteworthy contender in the gpu card compare.
Examining previous generations, the RTX 20-series and GTX 16-series, alongside the RX 5000-series, populate the mid-to-lower tiers of our hierarchy. A general performance trend emerges: newer architectures typically provide a “model upgrade” or two in performance. For instance, the RTX 2080 Super slots in just below the RTX 3060 Ti, while the RX 5700 XT closely matches the newer, more budget-friendly RX 6600 XT in our gpu card compare.
Looking further back reveals the increasing demands of modern games at ultra settings, especially regarding VRAM. We have consistently highlighted the limitations of 4GB VRAM in recent years. Today, we strongly advise against purchasing any GPU with less than 8GB of VRAM, with 12GB or more being the minimum recommendation for mainstream GPUs, and 16GB or higher for high-end cards and above. Older cards like the GTX 1060 3GB and GTX 1050 struggled to complete some of our tests, skewing their overall results, even though they might perform adequately at 1080p medium settings for a basic gpu card compare.
Let’s now transition to our ray tracing hierarchy to further extend our gpu card compare analysis.
Ray Tracing GPU Benchmarks Ranking 2025
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” generally corresponds to the medium graphics preset with ray tracing effects enabled (set to “medium” if available, otherwise “on”). “Ultra” activates all ray tracing options at or near maximum quality, pushing GPUs to their ray tracing limits for a comprehensive gpu card compare.
Due to the significant performance overhead of ray tracing, we’ve organized these results by 1080p medium scores. This is also because entry-level ray tracing capable GPUs like the RX 6500 XT, RX 6400, and Arc A380 struggle to handle ray tracing even at these settings. Testing beyond 1080p medium would be largely unproductive for these lower-end cards, although we do include 1080p ultra results for reference in the charts below, allowing for a detailed gpu card compare across the board.
Our ray tracing benchmark suite comprises five games that heavily utilize the DirectX 12 / DX12 Ultimate API: Bright Memory Infinite, Control Ultimate Edition, Cyberpunk 2077, Metro Exodus Enhanced, and Minecraft. The reported fps score is the geometric mean across these five games, scaled relative to the fastest GPU in the list, the GeForce RTX 4090, providing a clear gpu card compare in ray tracing performance.
To glimpse the future of ray tracing, explore our Alan Wake 2 benchmarks, where full path tracing pushes even high-end GPUs to their limits, requiring upscaling for playable performance on non-Nvidia cards. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that games where ray tracing fundamentally transforms visuals remain limited. For most titles, rasterization rendering still offers a more sensible balance of performance and visual fidelity, a key consideration when performing a gpu card compare for real-world gaming scenarios.
Image 1 of 4
Alt text: Ray tracing GPU hierarchy chart showing performance scaling across different resolutions.
Image 2 of 4
Alt text: Detailed ray tracing benchmark chart at 1080p medium settings for GPU comparison.
Image 3 of 4
Alt text: 1440p ultra ray tracing GPU performance chart for high resolution analysis.
Image 4 of 4
Alt text: 4K ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for extreme ray tracing performance comparison.
GPU Ray Tracing Hierarchy, Key Takeaways
Swipe to scroll horizontally
| Graphics Card | Lowest Price | 1080p Medium | 1080p Ultra | 1440p Ultra | 4K Ultra | Specifications (Links to Review) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GeForce RTX 4090 | $2,643 | 100.0% (165.9fps) | 100.0% (136.3fps) | 100.0% (103.9fps) | 100.0% (55.9fps) | AD102, 16384 shaders, 2520MHz, 24GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 1008GB/s, 450W |
| GeForce RTX 4080 Super | No Stock | 86.8% (144.0fps) | 85.3% (116.3fps) | 75.6% (78.6fps) | 70.5% (39.4fps) | AD103, 10240 shaders, 2550MHz, 16GB GDDR6X@23Gbps, 736GB/s, 320W |
| GeForce RTX 4080 | $1,725 | 85.4% (141.6fps) | 83.4% (113.6fps) | 73.1% (76.0fps) | 67.7% (37.8fps) | AD103, 9728 shaders, 2505MHz, 16GB [email protected], 717GB/s, 320W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 Ti Super | $819 | 77.3% (128.2fps) | 73.5% (100.3fps) | 63.5% (66.0fps) | 58.4% (32.6fps) | AD103, 8448 shaders, 2610MHz, 16GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 672GB/s, 285W |
| GeForce RTX 3090 Ti | $1,899 | 71.9% (119.3fps) | 68.4% (93.2fps) | 59.6% (62.0fps) | 56.9% (31.8fps) | GA102, 10752 shaders, 1860MHz, 24GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 1008GB/s, 450W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 Ti | $739 | 71.5% (118.6fps) | 67.1% (91.6fps) | 56.9% (59.1fps) | 52.3% (29.2fps) | AD104, 7680 shaders, 2610MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 504GB/s, 285W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 Super | $609 | 68.1% (113.0fps) | 62.7% (85.6fps) | 52.4% (54.5fps) | 47.8% (26.7fps) | AD104, 7168 shaders, 2475MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 504GB/s, 220W |
| GeForce RTX 3090 | $1,389 | 67.7% (112.4fps) | 63.5% (86.6fps) | 55.1% (57.2fps) | 51.8% (28.9fps) | GA102, 10496 shaders, 1695MHz, 24GB [email protected], 936GB/s, 350W |
| GeForce RTX 3080 Ti | $979 | 66.5% (110.4fps) | 62.2% (84.8fps) | 53.2% (55.3fps) | 48.6% (27.1fps) | GA102, 10240 shaders, 1665MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 912GB/s, 350W |
| Radeon RX 7900 XTX | $869 | 66.1% (109.6fps) | 61.7% (84.1fps) | 53.2% (55.3fps) | 48.6% (27.2fps) | Navi 31, 6144 shaders, 2500MHz, 24GB GDDR6@20Gbps, 960GB/s, 355W |
| GeForce RTX 3080 12GB | $829 | 64.9% (107.6fps) | 59.9% (81.7fps) | 50.8% (52.8fps) | 46.3% (25.8fps) | GA102, 8960 shaders, 1845MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 912GB/s, 400W |
| GeForce RTX 4070 | $519 | 61.2% (101.4fps) | 54.2% (73.9fps) | 45.1% (46.9fps) | 40.7% (22.7fps) | AD104, 5888 shaders, 2475MHz, 12GB GDDR6X@21Gbps, 504GB/s, 200W |
| Radeon RX 7900 XT | $689 | 60.4% (100.3fps) | 55.3% (75.3fps) | 46.7% (48.5fps) | 41.6% (23.3fps) | Navi 31, 5376 shaders, 2400MHz, 20GB GDDR6@20Gbps, 800GB/s, 315W |
| GeForce RTX 3080 | $829 | 60.2% (99.8fps) | 54.5% (74.3fps) | 46.1% (47.9fps) | 41.8% (23.3fps) | GA102, 8704 shaders, 1710MHz, 10GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 760GB/s, 320W |
| Radeon RX 7900 GRE | No Stock | 52.9% (87.7fps) | 46.8% (63.7fps) | 39.6% (41.2fps) | 35.7% (19.9fps) | Navi 31, 5120 shaders, 2245MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 576GB/s, 260W |
| GeForce RTX 3070 Ti | $499 | 50.6% (84.0fps) | 43.0% (58.6fps) | 35.7% (37.1fps) | Row 15 – Cell 5 | GA104, 6144 shaders, 1770MHz, 8GB GDDR6X@19Gbps, 608GB/s, 290W |
| Radeon RX 6950 XT | $1,199 | 48.3% (80.1fps) | 41.4% (56.4fps) | 34.3% (35.7fps) | 31.0% (17.3fps) | Navi 21, 5120 shaders, 2310MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 576GB/s, 335W |
| GeForce RTX 3070 | $399 | 47.2% (78.2fps) | 39.9% (54.4fps) | 32.8% (34.1fps) | Row 17 – Cell 5 | GA104, 5888 shaders, 1725MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 220W |
| Radeon RX 7800 XT | $489 | 46.7% (77.5fps) | 41.9% (57.1fps) | 34.9% (36.3fps) | 31.0% (17.3fps) | Navi 32, 3840 shaders, 2430MHz, 16GB [email protected], 624GB/s, 263W |
| Radeon RX 6900 XT | $811 | 45.4% (75.4fps) | 38.3% (52.3fps) | 32.1% (33.3fps) | 28.8% (16.1fps) | Navi 21, 5120 shaders, 2250MHz, 16GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 300W |
| GeForce RTX 4060 Ti | $399 | 45.2% (75.1fps) | 38.7% (52.8fps) | 32.3% (33.5fps) | 24.8% (13.9fps) | AD106, 4352 shaders, 2535MHz, 8GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 160W |
| GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 16GB | $449 | 45.2% (75.0fps) | 38.8% (53.0fps) | 32.7% (34.0fps) | 29.5% (16.5fps) | AD106, 4352 shaders, 2535MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 160W |
| Titan RTX | Row 22 – Cell 1 | 44.8% (74.4fps) | 39.1% (53.3fps) | 33.7% (35.0fps) | 31.2% (17.4fps) | TU102, 4608 shaders, 1770MHz, 24GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 672GB/s, 280W |
| GeForce RTX 2080 Ti | Row 23 – Cell 1 | 42.7% (70.9fps) | 37.2% (50.7fps) | 31.6% (32.9fps) | Row 23 – Cell 5 | TU102, 4352 shaders, 1545MHz, 11GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 616GB/s, 250W |
| Radeon RX 6800 XT | $1,099 | 42.2% (70.0fps) | 35.6% (48.5fps) | 29.9% (31.1fps) | 26.8% (15.0fps) | Navi 21, 4608 shaders, 2250MHz, 16GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 300W |
| GeForce RTX 3060 Ti | $453 | 41.9% (69.5fps) | 35.0% (47.7fps) | 28.8% (30.0fps) | Row 25 – Cell 5 | GA104, 4864 shaders, 1665MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 200W |
| Radeon RX 7700 XT | $404 | 41.3% (68.4fps) | 36.5% (49.7fps) | 30.6% (31.8fps) | 27.2% (15.2fps) | Navi 32, 3456 shaders, 2544MHz, 12GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 432GB/s, 245W |
| Radeon RX 6800 | $849 | 36.3% (60.1fps) | 30.2% (41.2fps) | 25.4% (26.3fps) | Row 27 – Cell 5 | Navi 21, 3840 shaders, 2105MHz, 16GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 250W |
| GeForce RTX 2080 Super | Row 28 – Cell 1 | 35.8% (59.4fps) | 30.8% (42.0fps) | 26.1% (27.1fps) | Row 28 – Cell 5 | TU104, 3072 shaders, 1815MHz, 8GB [email protected], 496GB/s, 250W |
| GeForce RTX 4060 | $294 | 35.4% (58.8fps) | 30.6% (41.7fps) | 24.9% (25.8fps) | Row 29 – Cell 5 | AD107, 3072 shaders, 2460MHz, 8GB GDDR6@17Gbps, 272GB/s, 115W |
| GeForce RTX 2080 | Row 30 – Cell 1 | 34.4% (57.1fps) | 29.1% (39.7fps) | 24.6% (25.5fps) | Row 30 – Cell 5 | TU104, 2944 shaders, 1710MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 215W |
| Intel Arc A770 8GB | No Stock | 32.7% (54.2fps) | 28.4% (38.7fps) | 24.0% (24.9fps) | Row 31 – Cell 5 | ACM-G10, 4096 shaders, 2400MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 225W |
| Intel Arc A770 16GB | $299 | 32.6% (54.1fps) | 28.3% (38.6fps) | 25.3% (26.2fps) | Row 32 – Cell 5 | ACM-G10, 4096 shaders, 2400MHz, 16GB [email protected], 560GB/s, 225W |
| GeForce RTX 3060 | Row 33 – Cell 1 | 31.7% (52.5fps) | 25.7% (35.1fps) | 21.1% (22.0fps) | Row 33 – Cell 5 | GA106, 3584 shaders, 1777MHz, 12GB GDDR6@15Gbps, 360GB/s, 170W |
| GeForce RTX 2070 Super | Row 34 – Cell 1 | 31.6% (52.4fps) | 26.8% (36.6fps) | 22.3% (23.1fps) | Row 34 – Cell 5 | TU104, 2560 shaders, 1770MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 215W |
| Intel Arc A750 | $189 | 30.7% (51.0fps) | 26.8% (36.6fps) | 22.6% (23.5fps) | Row 35 – Cell 5 | ACM-G10, 3584 shaders, 2350MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 225W |
| Radeon RX 6750 XT | $359 | 30.0% (49.8fps) | 25.3% (34.5fps) | 20.7% (21.5fps) | Row 36 – Cell 5 | Navi 22, 2560 shaders, 2600MHz, 12GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 432GB/s, 250W |
| Radeon RX 6700 XT | $519 | 28.1% (46.6fps) | 23.7% (32.3fps) | 19.1% (19.9fps) | Row 37 – Cell 5 | Navi 22, 2560 shaders, 2581MHz, 12GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 384GB/s, 230W |
| GeForce RTX 2070 | Row 38 – Cell 1 | 27.9% (46.3fps) | 23.5% (32.1fps) | 19.7% (20.4fps) | Row 38 – Cell 5 | TU106, 2304 shaders, 1620MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 175W |
| Intel Arc A580 | $169 | 27.5% (45.6fps) | 24.0% (32.7fps) | 20.3% (21.1fps) | Row 39 – Cell 5 | ACM-G10, 3072 shaders, 2300MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 512GB/s, 185W |
| GeForce RTX 2060 Super | Row 40 – Cell 1 | 26.8% (44.5fps) | 22.4% (30.5fps) | 18.5% (19.3fps) | Row 40 – Cell 5 | TU106, 2176 shaders, 1650MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 448GB/s, 175W |
| Radeon RX 7600 XT | $314 | 26.6% (44.2fps) | 22.6% (30.8fps) | 18.3% (19.0fps) | 16.0% (8.9fps) | Navi 33, 2048 shaders, 2755MHz, 16GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 190W |
| Radeon RX 6700 10GB | No Stock | 25.9% (42.9fps) | 21.4% (29.2fps) | 16.8% (17.5fps) | Row 42 – Cell 5 | Navi 22, 2304 shaders, 2450MHz, 10GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 320GB/s, 175W |
| GeForce RTX 2060 | Row 43 – Cell 1 | 23.2% (38.4fps) | 18.6% (25.4fps) | Row 43 – Cell 4 | Row 43 – Cell 5 | TU106, 1920 shaders, 1680MHz, 6GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 336GB/s, 160W |
| Radeon RX 7600 | $249 | 23.1% (38.3fps) | 18.9% (25.7fps) | 14.7% (15.2fps) | Row 44 – Cell 5 | Navi 33, 2048 shaders, 2655MHz, 8GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 288GB/s, 165W |
| Radeon RX 6650 XT | $254 | 22.7% (37.6fps) | 18.8% (25.6fps) | Row 45 – Cell 4 | Row 45 – Cell 5 | Navi 23, 2048 shaders, 2635MHz, 8GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 280GB/s, 180W |
| GeForce RTX 3050 | $169 | 22.3% (36.9fps) | 18.0% (24.6fps) | Row 46 – Cell 4 | Row 46 – Cell 5 | GA106, 2560 shaders, 1777MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 224GB/s, 130W |
| Radeon RX 6600 XT | $239 | 22.1% (36.7fps) | 18.2% (24.8fps) | Row 47 – Cell 4 | Row 47 – Cell 5 | Navi 23, 2048 shaders, 2589MHz, 8GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 256GB/s, 160W |
| Radeon RX 6600 | $189 | 18.6% (30.8fps) | 15.2% (20.7fps) | Row 48 – Cell 4 | Row 48 – Cell 5 | Navi 23, 1792 shaders, 2491MHz, 8GB GDDR6@14Gbps, 224GB/s, 132W |
| Intel Arc A380 | $119 | 11.0% (18.3fps) | Row 49 – Cell 3 | Row 49 – Cell 4 | Row 49 – Cell 5 | ACM-G11, 1024 shaders, 2450MHz, 6GB [email protected], 186GB/s, 75W |
| Radeon RX 6500 XT | $139 | 5.9% (9.9fps) | Row 50 – Cell 3 | Row 50 – Cell 4 | Row 50 – Cell 5 | Navi 24, 1024 shaders, 2815MHz, 4GB GDDR6@18Gbps, 144GB/s, 107W |
| Radeon RX 6400 | $139 | 5.0% (8.3fps) | Row 51 – Cell 3 | Row 51 – Cell 4 | Row 51 – Cell 5 | Navi 24, 768 shaders, 2321MHz, 4GB GDDR6@16Gbps, 128GB/s, 53W |
The RTX 4090’s ray tracing performance is even more remarkable than its rasterization prowess. Nvidia’s Ada Lovelace architecture incorporates significant ray tracing enhancements, becoming evident in these benchmarks. Further performance gains are anticipated with technologies like SER, OMM, and DMM, alongside DLSS 3, although the latter presents a mixed bag due to latency concerns with frame generation. This gpu card compare clearly highlights Nvidia’s ray tracing leadership.
For a glimpse into extreme ray tracing scenarios, we also tested high-end GPUs with Cyberpunk 2077‘s RT Overdrive mode (path tracing) and Alan Wake 2, which also utilizes path tracing at higher settings. Games like Black Myth: Wukong further embrace full ray tracing. These titles preview the future of gaming, emphasizing the growing importance of upscaling and AI-driven techniques like frame generation for maintaining playable frame rates with advanced ray tracing effects.
Even at 1080p medium, a relatively moderate DXR setting, the RTX 4090 significantly outperforms all competitors, leading the previous-generation RTX 3090 Ti by 41%. At 1080p ultra, this lead expands to 53%, and at 1440p, it reaches nearly 64%. 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 substantiated by our testing. Even without DLSS 3, the 4090 demonstrates a 72% performance increase over the 3090 Ti at 4K in our gpu card compare.
AMD’s approach to ray tracing remains secondary, prioritizing rasterization performance and cost-effectiveness through chiplet designs in their RDNA 3 GPUs. Consequently, AMD’s ray tracing performance is less competitive in this gpu card compare. The flagship RX 7900 XTX roughly matches Nvidia’s previous-gen RTX 3080 12GB, placing it just ahead of the RTX 4070 in ray tracing workloads. While RDNA 3 does offer minor ray tracing improvements, as seen with the 7800 XT’s 10% DXR performance gain over the RX 6800 XT (despite similar rasterization performance), AMD lags behind Nvidia in ray tracing capabilities in this gpu card compare.
Intel’s Arc A7-series GPUs demonstrate a balanced performance profile, with the A750 surpassing the RTX 3060 overall. With driver optimizations, Minecraft performance on Arc GPUs now aligns with other DXR results, reinforcing their viability in ray tracing workloads and improving their standing in our gpu card compare.
DLSS Quality mode significantly enhances ray tracing performance on the RTX 4090, as detailed in our review, boosting 4K ultra performance by 78%. DLSS 3 frame generation further improves frame rates by 30% to 100%, although its impact on perceived gameplay smoothness should be carefully evaluated. When performing a gpu card compare considering upscaling technologies, DLSS 2 gives the 4090 nearly four times the ray tracing performance of AMD’s RX 7900 XTX – a substantial difference.
AMD’s FSR 2 and FSR 3 technologies offer alternative upscaling solutions and are gaining wider adoption. However, FSR still trails DLSS in game support and overall image quality in this gpu card compare. Only two games in our DXR suite support FSR2, while all support DLSS2, with one also supporting DLSS3, highlighting Nvidia’s stronger ecosystem in upscaling and ray tracing technologies.
Without FSR2, AMD’s top GPUs struggle to maintain 60 fps at 1080p ultra ray tracing settings, though 1440p remains reasonably playable at 40–50 fps. Native 4K ray tracing remains challenging for most GPUs, with only the RTX 3090 Ti and above consistently exceeding 30 fps in our composite score, underscoring the performance demands of high-resolution ray tracing and the importance of gpu card compare for specific use cases.
AMD’s FSR 3 frame generation, similar to DLSS3, introduces latency and requires Anti-Lag+ integration for AMD GPUs. While FSR 3 shows promise, its quality and latency remain variable across games, requiring further refinement.
Midrange GPUs like the RTX 3070 and RX 6700 XT can generally handle 1080p ultra ray tracing, while lower-tier DXR-capable GPUs struggle even at 1080p medium. The RX 6500 XT, in particular, falters, with single-digit frame rates in most tests, and Control requiring at least 6GB VRAM to enable ray tracing, further emphasizing the importance of VRAM considerations in gpu card compare for ray tracing.
Intel’s Arc A380 surprisingly outperforms the RX 6500 XT in ray tracing, despite having fewer Ray Accelerators than AMD’s offering. Intel’s Arc architecture demonstrates ray tracing potential, but the limited number of RTUs currently restricts overall performance. The top-end A770 narrowly surpasses the RTX 3060 in DXR benchmarks, but its ray tracing capabilities plateau beyond this point. Arc A750 and above cards, however, outperform AMD’s RX 6750 XT in DXR, underscoring AMD’s RDNA 2 architecture’s relative weakness in ray tracing compared to both Nvidia and Intel in this gpu card compare.
Comparing Nvidia’s RTX generations, the older RTX 2060 still edges out the newer RTX 3050 in ray tracing, while the RTX 2080 Ti, the 20-series flagship, falls slightly behind the RTX 3070, showcasing generational performance shifts and the value of gpu card compare across different architectures. While the 2080 Ti offered double the performance of the 2060 in ray tracing, the 3090 achieves roughly triple the performance of the 3050, highlighting the scalability of newer architectures.
Test System and How We Test for GPU Benchmarks
Our GPU benchmark testing employs multiple PC configurations. Our current 2022–2024 testbed utilizes an Alder Lake platform, while our prior setup was based on Coffee Lake and Z390. The latest charts (below) reflect performance on a Core i9-13900K system with an updated game selection. Detailed specifications of our test PCs are provided below.
Tom’s Hardware 2022–2024 GPU Testbed
- Intel Core i9-12900K
- MSI Pro Z690-A WiFi DDR4
- Corsair 2x16GB DDR4-3600 CL16
- Crucial P5 Plus 2TB
- Cooler Master MWE 1250 V2 Gold
- Cooler Master PL360 Flux
- Cooler Master HAF500
- Windows 11 Pro 64-bit
Tom’s Hardware 2020–2021 GPU Testbed
- Intel Core i9-9900K
- Corsair H150i Pro RGB
- MSI MEG Z390 Ace
- Corsair 2x16GB DDR4-3200
- XPG SX8200 Pro 2TB
- Windows 10 Pro (21H1)
Our standardized testing methodology is consistently applied across all graphics cards. We initiate each benchmark run with a warm-up pass after game launch, followed by at least two benchmark passes for every setting/resolution combination. Consistent results (within 0.5% variance) lead us to use the faster run. Larger discrepancies prompt additional test runs to ascertain typical performance levels, ensuring accuracy in our gpu card compare data.
Data anomalies are rigorously investigated. For example, expected performance ranges for RTX 3070 Ti, RTX 3070, and RTX 3060 Ti are closely monitored, with the 3070 Ti expected to be around 5% faster than the 3070, which in turn is about 5% faster than the 3060 Ti. Significant deviations (over 10%) trigger retesting to determine and rectify any inaccuracies, upholding the integrity of our gpu card compare.
Due to the extensive time required for GPU testing, driver updates and game patches inevitably emerge. We periodically re-evaluate a selection of GPUs to validate our findings and retest affected games and GPUs as needed. New games may also be incorporated into our test suite based on popularity and suitability for benchmarking, adhering to our defined criteria for selecting effective game benchmarks, ensuring our gpu card compare remains current and relevant.
GPU Benchmarks: Individual Game Charts
While the preceding tables offer a performance summary for gpu card compare, we also provide detailed individual game charts for both standard and ray tracing test suites for readers seeking granular data. These charts focus on more recent GPUs to maintain clarity and relevance. They also reflect our updated test PC, which may slightly alter performance compared to the summary tables, as these newer tests are more current but haven’t been applied to all older GPUs listed in the tables.
These charts are up to date as of November 11, 2024.
GPU Benchmarks — 1080p Medium
Image 1 of 22
Alt text: 1080p medium Borderlands 3 benchmark chart for GPU performance comparison.
Image 2 of 22
Alt text: Far Cry 6 benchmark chart at 1080p medium settings for GPU comparison.
Image 3 of 22
Alt text: Flight Simulator 1080p medium GPU benchmark chart for performance analysis.
Image 4 of 22
Alt text: Forza Horizon 5 benchmark chart at 1080p medium settings for GPU comparison.
Image 5 of 22
Alt text: Horizon Zero Dawn 1080p medium GPU benchmark chart for performance analysis.
Image 6 of 22
Alt text: Red Dead Redemption 2 benchmark chart at 1080p medium settings for GPU comparison.
Image 7 of 22
Alt text: Total War Warhammer 3 1080p medium GPU benchmark chart for performance analysis.
Image 8 of 22
Alt text: Watch Dogs Legion benchmark chart at 1080p medium settings for GPU comparison.
Image 9 of 22
Alt text: Bright Memory Infinite 1080p medium ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 10 of 22
Alt text: Control Ultimate Edition 1080p medium ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 11 of 22
Alt text: Cyberpunk 2077 1080p medium ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 12 of 22
Alt text: Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition 1080p medium ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 13 of 22
Alt text: Minecraft 1080p medium ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 14 of 22
Alt text: Power consumption GPU benchmark chart for 1080p medium settings.
Image 15 of 22
Alt text: Clock speeds GPU benchmark chart for 1080p medium settings.
Image 16 of 22
Alt text: Temperature GPU benchmark chart for 1080p medium settings.
Image 17 of 22
Alt text: Power consumption ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 1080p medium settings.
Image 18 of 22
Alt text: Clock speeds ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 1080p medium settings.
Image 19 of 22
Alt text: Temperature ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 1080p medium settings.
Image 20 of 22
Alt text: System power consumption GPU benchmark chart for 1080p medium settings.
Image 21 of 22
Alt text: System power consumption ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 1080p medium settings.
Image 22 of 22
Alt text: GPU clock speeds across different benchmark settings chart.
GPU Benchmarks — 1080p Ultra
Image 1 of 22
Alt text: 1080p ultra Borderlands 3 benchmark chart for GPU performance comparison.
Image 2 of 22
Alt text: Far Cry 6 benchmark chart at 1080p ultra settings for GPU comparison.
Image 3 of 22
Alt text: Flight Simulator 1080p ultra GPU benchmark chart for performance analysis.
Image 4 of 22
Alt text: Forza Horizon 5 benchmark chart at 1080p ultra settings for GPU comparison.
Image 5 of 22
Alt text: Horizon Zero Dawn 1080p ultra GPU benchmark chart for performance analysis.
Image 6 of 22
Alt text: Red Dead Redemption 2 benchmark chart at 1080p ultra settings for GPU comparison.
Image 7 of 22
Alt text: Total War Warhammer 3 1080p ultra GPU benchmark chart for performance analysis.
Image 8 of 22
Alt text: Watch Dogs Legion benchmark chart at 1080p ultra settings for GPU comparison.
Image 9 of 22
Alt text: Bright Memory Infinite 1080p ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 10 of 22
Alt text: Control Ultimate Edition 1080p ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 11 of 22
Alt text: Cyberpunk 2077 1080p ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 12 of 22
Alt text: Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition 1080p ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 13 of 22
Alt text: Minecraft 1080p ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 14 of 22
Alt text: Power consumption GPU benchmark chart for 1080p ultra settings.
Image 15 of 22
Alt text: Clock speeds GPU benchmark chart for 1080p ultra settings.
Image 16 of 22
Alt text: Temperature GPU benchmark chart for 1080p ultra settings.
Image 17 of 22
Alt text: Power consumption ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 1080p ultra settings.
Image 18 of 22
Alt text: Clock speeds ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 1080p ultra settings.
Image 19 of 22
Alt text: Temperature ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 1080p ultra settings.
Image 20 of 22
Alt text: System power consumption GPU benchmark chart for 1080p ultra settings.
Image 21 of 22
Alt text: System power consumption ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 1080p ultra settings.
Image 22 of 22
Alt text: GPU clock speeds across different benchmark settings chart.
GPU Benchmarks — 1440p Ultra
Image 1 of 22
Alt text: 1440p ultra Borderlands 3 benchmark chart for GPU performance comparison.
Image 2 of 22
Alt text: Far Cry 6 benchmark chart at 1440p ultra settings for GPU comparison.
Image 3 of 22
Alt text: Flight Simulator 1440p ultra GPU benchmark chart for performance analysis.
Image 4 of 22
Alt text: Forza Horizon 5 benchmark chart at 1440p ultra settings for GPU comparison.
Image 5 of 22
Alt text: Horizon Zero Dawn 1440p ultra GPU benchmark chart for performance analysis.
Image 6 of 22
Alt text: Red Dead Redemption 2 benchmark chart at 1440p ultra settings for GPU comparison.
Image 7 of 22
Alt text: Total War Warhammer 3 1440p ultra GPU benchmark chart for performance analysis.
Image 8 of 22
Alt text: Watch Dogs Legion benchmark chart at 1440p ultra settings for GPU comparison.
Image 9 of 22
Alt text: Bright Memory Infinite 1440p ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 10 of 22
Alt text: Control Ultimate Edition 1440p ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 11 of 22
Alt text: Cyberpunk 2077 1440p ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 12 of 22
Alt text: Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition 1440p ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 13 of 22
Alt text: Minecraft 1440p ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 14 of 22
Alt text: Power consumption GPU benchmark chart for 1440p ultra settings.
Image 15 of 22
Alt text: Clock speeds GPU benchmark chart for 1440p ultra settings.
Image 16 of 22
Alt text: Temperature GPU benchmark chart for 1440p ultra settings.
Image 17 of 22
Alt text: Power consumption ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 1440p ultra settings.
Image 18 of 22
Alt text: Clock speeds ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 1440p ultra settings.
Image 19 of 22
Alt text: Temperature ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 1440p ultra settings.
Image 20 of 22
Alt text: System power consumption GPU benchmark chart for 1440p ultra settings.
Image 21 of 22
Alt text: System power consumption ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 1440p ultra settings.
Image 22 of 22
Alt text: GPU clock speeds across different benchmark settings chart.
GPU Benchmarks — 4K Ultra
Image 1 of 22
Alt text: 4K ultra Borderlands 3 benchmark chart for GPU performance comparison.
Image 2 of 22
Alt text: Far Cry 6 benchmark chart at 4K ultra settings for GPU comparison.
Image 3 of 22
Alt text: Flight Simulator 4K ultra GPU benchmark chart for performance analysis.
Image 4 of 22
Alt text: Forza Horizon 5 benchmark chart at 4K ultra settings for GPU comparison.
Image 5 of 22
Alt text: Horizon Zero Dawn 4K ultra GPU benchmark chart for performance analysis.
Image 6 of 22
Alt text: Red Dead Redemption 2 benchmark chart at 4K ultra settings for GPU comparison.
Image 7 of 22
Alt text: Total War Warhammer 3 4K ultra GPU benchmark chart for performance analysis.
Image 8 of 22
Alt text: Watch Dogs Legion benchmark chart at 4K ultra settings for GPU comparison.
Image 9 of 22
Alt text: Bright Memory Infinite 4K ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 10 of 22
Alt text: Control Ultimate Edition 4K ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 11 of 22
Alt text: Cyberpunk 2077 4K ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 12 of 22
Alt text: Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition 4K ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 13 of 22
Alt text: Minecraft 4K ultra ray tracing benchmark chart for GPU comparison.
Image 14 of 22
Alt text: Power consumption GPU benchmark chart for 4K ultra settings.
Image 15 of 22
Alt text: Clock speeds GPU benchmark chart for 4K ultra settings.
Image 16 of 22
Alt text: Temperature GPU benchmark chart for 4K ultra settings.
Image 17 of 22
Alt text: Power consumption ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 4K ultra settings.
Image 18 of 22
Alt text: Clock speeds ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 4K ultra settings.
Image 19 of 22
Alt text: Temperature ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 4K ultra settings.
Image 20 of 22
Alt text: System power consumption GPU benchmark chart for 4K ultra settings.
Image 21 of 22
Alt text: System power consumption ray tracing GPU benchmark chart for 4K ultra settings.
Image 22 of 22
Alt text: GPU clock speeds across different benchmark settings chart.
GPU Benchmarks — Power, Clocks, and Temperatures
Beyond raw performance, power consumption and thermal characteristics are crucial considerations when choosing a graphics card. Below are charts detailing power, clock speeds, and temperatures for the GPUs tested, offering a holistic gpu card compare.
Image 1 of 4
Alt text: Power consumption GPU benchmark chart across different resolutions.
Image 2 of 4
Alt text: Clock speeds GPU benchmark chart across different resolutions.
Image 3 of 4
Alt text: Temperature GPU benchmark chart across different resolutions.
Image 4 of 4
Alt text: System power consumption GPU benchmark chart across different resolutions.
Image 1 of 4
Alt text: Ray tracing power consumption GPU benchmark chart across different resolutions.
Image 2 of 4
Alt text: Ray tracing clock speeds GPU benchmark chart across different resolutions.
Image 3 of 4
Alt text: Ray tracing temperature GPU benchmark chart across different resolutions.
Image 4 of 4
Alt text: Ray tracing system power consumption GPU benchmark chart across different resolutions.
Image 1 of 4
Alt text: GPU power consumption only benchmark chart across different resolutions.
Image 2 of 4
Alt text: GPU clock speeds only benchmark chart across different resolutions.
Image 3 of 4
Alt text: GPU temperatures only benchmark chart across different resolutions.
Image 4 of 4
Alt text: System power consumption only benchmark chart across different resolutions.
For access to our legacy GPU hierarchy, please visit page two. Join the ongoing discussion and share your thoughts on our gpu card compare and benchmarks hierarchy in our forums!
Choosing a Graphics Card
Selecting the right graphics card is crucial for achieving your desired gaming experience and workload performance. Our GPU card compare benchmarks hierarchy, encompassing numerous GPUs from the last four generations, serves as a valuable tool in this decision-making process. The top performers are unsurprisingly from Nvidia’s latest Ada Lovelace and AMD’s RDNA 3 architectures. AMD GPUs excel in rasterization performance, while Nvidia cards generally lead in ray tracing, particularly when DLSS is enabled. FSR2 offers a viable alternative for AMD GPUs, enhancing their performance and visual fidelity. With GPU prices normalizing, now is an opportune time to upgrade your graphics card, leveraging our gpu card compare to find the best value and performance for your needs.
Gaming is not the sole determinant in GPU selection. Many professional applications leverage GPU compute power, and our comprehensive GPU reviews include professional GPU benchmarks to address these use cases. Generally, a strong gaming GPU translates well to demanding computational tasks. High-end cards enable high-resolution, high-frame-rate gaming with maxed-out settings, while also excelling in content creation. Lower-tier GPUs necessitate dialing back settings to achieve acceptable performance in both gaming and professional workloads. Utilize our gpu card compare to navigate the diverse landscape of graphics cards and identify the optimal solution for your specific requirements.
For gaming-centric builds, CPU considerations are paramount. Even the most powerful GPU can be bottlenecked by an underperforming CPU. Consult our Best CPUs for gaming and CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy to ensure balanced component selection, optimizing your gaming performance. A well-rounded system, informed by thorough gpu card compare and CPU analysis, is key to a satisfying PC experience.
- 1
- 2
Current page: GPU Benchmarks Hierarchy 2025
Next Page 2020-2021 and Legacy GPU Benchmarks Hierarchy
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom’s Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom’s Hardware’s best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
TOPICS
Jarred Walton
Jarred Walton is a senior editor at Tom’s Hardware focusing on everything GPU. He has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge ‘3D decelerators’ to today’s GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance.
