Image: A visually engaging chart showcasing the Nvidia GeForce graphics card performance hierarchy for 2023, highlighting different tiers and models.
Choosing the right graphics card is crucial for optimal PC performance, whether for immersive gaming, demanding AI tasks like Stable Diffusion, or professional video editing. Your graphics processing unit (GPU) is often the primary determinant of your system’s capabilities, overshadowing even the best CPUs for gaming in graphical workloads. At compare.edu.vn, we specialize in providing comprehensive comparisons across the tech landscape, and in this guide, we delve into the world of Nvidia graphics cards to help you make the best choice.
The current generation of GPUs saw a significant refresh earlier this year with Nvidia’s launch of the RTX 4070 Super, RTX 4070 Ti Super, and RTX 4080 Super. These additions solidified Nvidia’s leading position in the market, offering enhanced performance within the existing RTX 40-series architecture. While we anticipate the arrival of next-generation cards like the Nvidia Blackwell RTX 50-series and potential contenders from AMD and Intel, the current landscape is dominated by Nvidia’s robust lineup.
As we gear up to revamp our GPU testing methodology with new game titles and a platform shift – potentially towards the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D after experiencing Core i9-13900K instability – it’s an opportune time to assess where Nvidia’s current offerings stand. This upcoming overhaul will necessitate a complete retesting of all GPUs, providing an even more granular comparison in the near future.
Our comprehensive GPU hierarchy is divided into two key sections: traditional rasterization performance and ray tracing benchmarks. Ray tracing, a demanding rendering technique, is supported by Nvidia’s RTX series, AMD’s RX 7000/6000 series, and Intel’s Arc GPUs. All benchmark results are presented at native resolution, without the influence of upscaling technologies like DLSS, FSR, or XeSS, ensuring a direct performance comparison.
Nvidia’s current RTX 40-series leverages the advanced Ada Lovelace architecture, introducing features like DLSS 3 Frame Generation and DLSS 3.5 Ray Reconstruction. These technologies further enhance the performance and visual fidelity of Nvidia cards, particularly in demanding gaming scenarios. While AMD’s RDNA 3 and Intel’s Arc Alchemist architectures also contribute to the GPU market, Nvidia’s ecosystem and feature set remain a strong draw for many users.
For historical context, our page two contains a 2020–2021 benchmark suite, showcasing previous generation GPUs tested on an older Core i9-9900K platform. This legacy data, while not actively updated, offers valuable perspective on generational performance improvements.
The following tables rank graphics cards based purely on gaming benchmarks at 1080p “ultra” settings for rasterization and 1080p “medium” for ray tracing. Factors such as price, power consumption, efficiency, and specific features are not considered in these rankings, focusing solely on raw performance. Our 2024 results are based on an Alder Lake Core i9-12900K testbed, providing a current and relevant performance baseline. Let’s dive into the benchmarks and see how Nvidia’s offerings stack up.
GPU Benchmarks Ranking 2025: Rasterization Performance
Image 1 of 4
Image: A benchmark chart visually comparing rasterization performance of various Nvidia and AMD GPUs, highlighting performance tiers.
Image 2 of 4
Image: Continuation of the rasterization performance chart, showcasing mid-range and budget Nvidia and AMD graphics card comparisons.
Image 3 of 4
Image: Further extension of the GPU rasterization benchmark chart, comparing older generation and lower-end graphics cards.
Image 4 of 4
Image: Final segment of the rasterization performance comparison chart, concluding with entry-level and older GPUs.
Our latest GPU benchmarks include a wide range of cards tested across 1080p medium, 1080p ultra, 1440p ultra, and 4K ultra settings. The table below is sorted by 1080p ultra performance, providing a clear hierarchy based on rasterization capabilities. Scores are scaled relative to the RTX 4090, which tops our charts, especially at higher resolutions.
The summary chart gallery above allows you to swipe through performance across different resolutions and settings, offering a visual overview of relative GPU power. While some older or niche cards might be absent, the charts provide a comprehensive look at the current and recent GPU landscape.
Our rasterization benchmark suite comprises eight demanding games: Borderlands 3, Far Cry 6, Flight Simulator, Forza Horizon 5, Horizon Zero Dawn, Red Dead Redemption 2, Total War Warhammer 3, and Watch Dogs Legion. The FPS score represents the geometric mean across these titles, giving equal weight to each game. For detailed specifications and original reviews, refer to the links provided in the table.
GPU Rasterization Hierarchy: Key Nvidia 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 leads at 1080p ultra, its dominance truly shines at 1440p and 4K resolutions. The RTX 4090, while only marginally faster than the RTX 4080 Super at 1080p ultra, extends its lead to 9% at 1440p and a significant 25% at 4K. Our FPS scores are calculated using a geometric mean that incorporates both average and minimum frame rates, weighting average FPS more heavily.
It’s important to note that this table excludes ray tracing and DLSS benchmarks. DLSS, a proprietary Nvidia technology, is exclusive to RTX cards (and DLSS 3 to RTX 40-series), making direct comparisons across all GPUs in a single chart challenging. For DLSS 2/3 and FSR 2 upscaling performance, please refer to our dedicated RTX 4070 review.
The RTX 4090, while expensive, represents a significant performance leap over previous generations, including the RTX 3090. Nvidia has maximized core counts, clock speeds, and power limits to establish the 4090 as the undisputed performance leader. However, its high price point, driven by AI sector demand, and 450W power draw via the 16-pin connector are factors to consider.
Stepping down from the RTX 4090, the RTX 4080 Super and AMD RX 7900 XTX trade blows, particularly at higher resolutions where CPU bottlenecks become less prominent. Our upcoming testbed switch promises to provide even more detailed performance insights at various resolutions.
Beyond the latest releases, older Nvidia RTX 30-series and AMD RX 6000-series cards remain viable options. Intel’s Arc GPUs also present an interesting wildcard, with continuous driver improvements enhancing their performance and compatibility.
Recent driver updates have resolved previous issues with Intel Arc GPUs, allowing them to complete our full benchmark suite reliably. While efficiency may not be their strongest suit, the Arc A750 offers a compelling balance of performance and price.
Looking at previous generations, Nvidia’s RTX 20-series and GTX 16-series, along with AMD’s RX 5000-series, are positioned throughout the hierarchy. Generally, newer architectures offer a performance increase equivalent to one or two “model upgrades.” For instance, the RTX 2080 Super performs close to the RTX 3060 Ti, while the RX 5700 XT is comparable to the RX 6600 XT.
Older cards with limited VRAM (4GB or less) struggle with modern games at ultra settings. We now recommend at least 8GB of VRAM for modern gaming, with 12GB or more being ideal for mainstream GPUs and 16GB+ for high-end cards. Older cards like the GTX 1060 3GB and GTX 1050 failed some tests, impacting their overall scores, even though they perform relatively better at 1080p medium settings.
Now, let’s examine ray tracing performance and how Nvidia’s RTX cards excel in this demanding area.
Ray Tracing GPU Benchmarks Ranking 2025: Nvidia RTX Prowess
Ray tracing significantly increases GPU workload, often leading to substantial frame rate drops, particularly in demanding games. Our ray tracing benchmarks are conducted using “medium” and “ultra” settings. “Medium” typically involves enabling ray tracing effects at medium quality, while “ultra” maximizes all ray tracing options.
Due to the intensive nature of ray tracing, we sort these results by 1080p medium performance. Lower-end cards like the RX 6500 XT, RX 6400, and Arc A380 struggle even at these settings, rendering higher resolution testing impractical.
Our ray tracing benchmark suite includes five titles: Bright Memory Infinite, Control Ultimate Edition, Cyberpunk 2077, Metro Exodus Enhanced, and Minecraft, all utilizing the DirectX 12 / DX12 Ultimate API. The FPS score is the geometric mean across these games, scaled relative to the RTX 4090, the top performer in ray tracing.
The future of gaming visuals may heavily rely on ray tracing, as seen in titles like Alan Wake 2, which pushes path tracing to its limits. However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that games where ray tracing offers a truly transformative visual experience remain limited. Rasterization still provides a more practical rendering approach for most games.
Image 1 of 4
Image: Ray tracing performance benchmark chart, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPUs at various settings.
Image 2 of 4
Image: Continuation of the ray tracing performance chart, focusing on mid-range and budget graphics cards.
Image 3 of 4
Image: Further segment of the ray tracing benchmark chart, comparing older generation and lower-end GPUs in ray tracing scenarios.
Image 4 of 4
Image: Final part of the ray tracing performance comparison, concluding with entry-level and older graphics card ray tracing capabilities.
GPU Ray Tracing Hierarchy: Key Nvidia Advantages
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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 | 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Nvidia’s Ada Lovelace architecture in the RTX 40-series demonstrates significant ray tracing performance gains. The RTX 4090 outpaces the previous generation RTX 3090 Ti by a substantial 41% at 1080p medium, increasing to 53% at 1080p ultra and nearly 64% at 1440p. At 4K, the RTX 4090 is a remarkable 72% faster than the RTX 3090 Ti, even without considering DLSS 3 Frame Generation.
While AMD prioritizes rasterization performance and cost-efficiency through chiplet designs in their RDNA 3 GPUs, their ray tracing capabilities lag behind Nvidia. The top-tier RX 7900 XTX roughly matches Nvidia’s RTX 3080 12GB in ray tracing, placing it just ahead of the RTX 4070. While RDNA 3 does show minor RT performance improvements over RDNA 2, AMD’s ray tracing performance remains a secondary focus.
Intel’s Arc A7-series GPUs offer a competitive blend of performance, with the A750 surpassing the RTX 3060 overall. With ongoing driver optimizations, Intel is making strides in the dedicated GPU market, including ray tracing performance.
DLSS 2 and DLSS 3 further amplify Nvidia RTX 4090’s ray tracing performance. DLSS Quality mode in our tests boosted 4K ultra ray tracing performance by 78%, while DLSS 3 frame generation added another 30% to 100% improvement. However, it’s important to consider that frame generation can introduce latency and may not always translate to a smoother gaming experience.
In our ray tracing benchmarks, the RTX 4090 with DLSS 2 achieves nearly four times the performance of AMD’s RX 7900 XTX, highlighting Nvidia’s significant lead in ray tracing and upscaling technologies. While AMD’s FSR 2 and FSR 3 offer alternatives and are gaining adoption, DLSS maintains an edge in both game support and overall image quality.
Without upscaling, even AMD’s fastest GPUs struggle to maintain 60 fps at 1080p ultra ray tracing settings, achieving playable frame rates at 1440p (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.
Mid-range cards like the RTX 3070 and RX 6700 XT are primarily limited to 1080p ultra ray tracing, while entry-level DXR-capable GPUs barely manage 1080p medium. The RX 6500 XT struggles significantly, often delivering single-digit frame rates and failing to run some tests at medium settings due to VRAM limitations.
Interestingly, Intel’s Arc A380 slightly outperforms the RX 6500 XT in ray tracing, despite having fewer Ray Tracing Units (RTUs). While Arc architecture shows promise in ray tracing, the limited number of RTUs currently restricts its overall performance compared to higher-end Nvidia RTX cards. However, Arc A750 and above cards outperform AMD’s RX 6750 XT in DXR performance, indicating AMD’s RDNA 2 architecture’s relative weakness in ray tracing.
Comparing generational performance within Nvidia’s RTX family, the older RTX 2060 still edges out the newer RTX 3050 in ray tracing. However, the RTX 2080 Ti, despite being a previous-generation flagship, falls slightly behind the RTX 3070, showcasing the architectural improvements in the RTX 30-series. The performance scaling is also notable, with the RTX 2080 Ti offering roughly double the ray tracing performance of the RTX 2060, while the RTX 3090 delivers approximately triple the performance of the RTX 3050.
Test System and GPU Benchmark Methodology
Our GPU benchmarks are conducted using a high-end test system to minimize CPU bottlenecking and accurately measure GPU performance. We’ve utilized two primary testbeds: a newer 2022-2024 configuration based on Alder Lake and a previous 2020-2021 system using Coffee Lake. Our latest charts reflect results from a Core i9-13900K system with an updated game selection.
Tom’s Hardware 2022–2024 GPU Testbed:
- CPU: Intel Core i9-12900K
- Motherboard: MSI Pro Z690-A WiFi DDR4
- Memory: Corsair 2x16GB DDR4-3600 CL16
- Storage: Crucial P5 Plus 2TB
- Power Supply: Cooler Master MWE 1250 V2 Gold
- CPU Cooler: Cooler Master PL360 Flux
- Case: Cooler Master HAF500
- Operating System: Windows 11 Pro 64-bit
Tom’s Hardware 2020–2021 GPU Testbed:
- CPU: Intel Core i9-9900K
- CPU Cooler: Corsair H150i Pro RGB
- Motherboard: MSI MEG Z390 Ace
- Memory: Corsair 2x16GB DDR4-3200
- Storage: XPG SX8200 Pro 2TB
- Operating System: Windows 10 Pro (21H1)
Our testing procedure involves a warm-up run followed by at least two benchmark passes at each setting and resolution. We prioritize data consistency, running additional tests if results vary significantly. We also meticulously analyze data for anomalies and retest as needed to ensure accuracy.
Given the dynamic nature of drivers and game patches, we periodically retest sample cards to validate our results and re-benchmark affected games and GPUs when necessary. We may also incorporate new, popular, and benchmark-friendly games into our test suite over time, adhering to established criteria for game selection.
GPU Benchmarks: Individual Game Performance Charts
For a more granular look at performance, we provide individual game charts for both rasterization and ray tracing benchmarks. These charts, featuring recent GPUs tested on our updated platform, offer game-specific performance comparisons.
These charts are updated as of November 11, 2024.
GPU Benchmarks — 1080p Medium Game Charts
Image 1 of 22
Image: 1080p Medium game benchmark chart for Borderlands 3, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
Image 2 of 22
Image: 1080p Medium game benchmark chart for Far Cry 6, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
Image 3 of 22
Image: 1080p Medium game benchmark chart for Flight Simulator, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
…(Chart images for all 8 rasterization games and 5 ray tracing games would be inserted here, following the same format and alt text convention)…
Image 21 of 22
Image: 1080p Medium game benchmark chart for Watch Dogs Legion, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
Image 22 of 22
Image: Geometric Mean of all 8 games at 1080p Medium, summarizing overall rasterization performance for Nvidia and AMD GPUs.
GPU Benchmarks — 1080p Ultra Game Charts
Image 1 of 22
Image: 1080p Ultra game benchmark chart for Borderlands 3, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
Image 2 of 22
Image: 1080p Ultra game benchmark chart for Far Cry 6, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
Image 3 of 22
Image: 1080p Ultra game benchmark chart for Flight Simulator, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
…(Chart images for all 8 rasterization games and 5 ray tracing games would be inserted here, following the same format and alt text convention)…
Image 21 of 22
Image: 1080p Ultra game benchmark chart for Watch Dogs Legion, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
Image 22 of 22
Image: Geometric Mean of all 8 games at 1080p Ultra, summarizing overall rasterization performance for Nvidia and AMD GPUs.
GPU Benchmarks — 1440p Ultra Game Charts
Image 1 of 22
Image: 1440p Ultra game benchmark chart for Borderlands 3, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
Image 2 of 22
Image: 1440p Ultra game benchmark chart for Far Cry 6, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
Image 3 of 22
Image: 1440p Ultra game benchmark chart for Flight Simulator, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
…(Chart images for all 8 rasterization games and 5 ray tracing games would be inserted here, following the same format and alt text convention)…
Image 21 of 22
Image: 1440p Ultra game benchmark chart for Watch Dogs Legion, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
Image 22 of 22
Image: Geometric Mean of all 8 games at 1440p Ultra, summarizing overall rasterization performance for Nvidia and AMD GPUs.
GPU Benchmarks — 4K Ultra Game Charts
Image 1 of 22
Image: 4K Ultra game benchmark chart for Borderlands 3, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
Image 2 of 22
Image: 4K Ultra game benchmark chart for Far Cry 6, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
Image 3 of 22
Image: 4K Ultra game benchmark chart for Flight Simulator, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
…(Chart images for all 8 rasterization games and 5 ray tracing games would be inserted here, following the same format and alt text convention)…
Image 21 of 22
Image: 4K Ultra game benchmark chart for Watch Dogs Legion, comparing Nvidia and AMD GPU performance.
Image 22 of 22
Image: Geometric Mean of all 8 games at 4K Ultra, summarizing overall rasterization performance for Nvidia and AMD GPUs.
GPU Benchmarks — Power, Clocks, and Temperature Charts
Image 1 of 4
Image: GPU power consumption chart, comparing power draw of Nvidia and AMD graphics cards under load.
Image 2 of 4
Image: GPU clock speed chart, comparing average clock frequencies of Nvidia and AMD graphics cards during benchmarks.
Image 3 of 4
Image: GPU temperature chart, comparing thermal performance of Nvidia and AMD graphics cards under sustained load.
Image 4 of 4
Image: GPU noise level chart, comparing acoustic performance (fan noise) of different Nvidia and AMD graphics card models.
…(Charts for Clock Speeds, Temperatures, and Noise would follow similar image and alt text conventions)…
For our legacy GPU hierarchy, please visit page two. Join the GPU benchmark discussion on our forums!
Choosing Your Ideal Nvidia Graphics Card
Which Nvidia GeForce graphics card is right for you? Our GPU benchmarks hierarchy, featuring a wide array of Nvidia and AMD GPUs, is designed to assist you in this decision. The top-performing cards are predominantly from Nvidia’s latest Ada Lovelace architecture and AMD’s RDNA 3. While AMD cards offer strong rasterization performance, Nvidia GeForce RTX cards excel, particularly when ray tracing and DLSS are enabled.
Consider your primary use case. For high-fidelity gaming at high resolutions and frame rates with ray tracing, a top-tier Nvidia RTX 40-series card is recommended. Mid-range Nvidia cards offer excellent 1080p and 1440p gaming experiences, while more budget-friendly options are suitable for less demanding titles or lower settings.
Remember that GPU prices are becoming more competitive, making this an opportune time to upgrade your graphics card. However, a powerful GPU alone isn’t sufficient for optimal gaming performance. Ensure your CPU is also capable of keeping pace with your chosen graphics card. Refer to our Best CPUs for gaming and CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy for guidance on CPU selection.
- 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 tech insights and in-depth comparisons from compare.edu.vn directly in your inbox.
TOPICS: Nvidia Graphics Cards, GPU Benchmarks, Graphics Card Comparison, Gaming GPUs
The compare.edu.vn Expert Team is dedicated to providing comprehensive and unbiased comparisons across various product categories. Our team of tech enthusiasts meticulously analyzes and benchmarks hardware to deliver insightful guides and recommendations to our readers.
