(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Choosing the right video card is crucial for optimal performance in gaming, AI tasks like Stable Diffusion, and professional video editing. While even the best CPUs for gaming play a role, your graphics processing unit (GPU) is often the primary determinant of your system’s graphical prowess. To help you navigate the complex world of video cards, we present our comprehensive Video Card Compare Chart. This chart ranks current and previous generation GPUs based on rigorous benchmarks conducted by Tom’s Hardware, ensuring you have the data to select the best graphics card for your needs and budget.
This year has already seen significant updates to the GPU landscape with Nvidia’s launch of the RTX 4070 Super, RTX 4070 Ti Super, and RTX 4080 Super, alongside AMD’s release of the RX 7600 XT and the US arrival of the RX 7900 GRE. While we anticipate further disruptions with the upcoming Nvidia Blackwell RTX 50-series, Intel Battlemage, and AMD RDNA 4 GPUs expected in late 2024 or early 2025, our current video card compare chart provides an invaluable snapshot of today’s market.
Looking ahead, we are also in the process of updating our GPU testing methodology, incorporating new game titles and transitioning to a new testing platform. After encountering issues with our Core i9-13900K testbed, we are considering moving to the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D for future benchmarks. This shift will necessitate a complete retesting of all video cards in our comparison, ensuring our video card compare chart remains accurate and reflective of real-world performance.
Our video card compare chart is divided into two main sections: traditional rasterization performance and ray tracing performance. Ray tracing benchmarks are specifically for GPUs that support this advanced rendering technique, including AMD’s RX 7000/6000 series, Intel’s Arc series, and Nvidia’s RTX series. All benchmark results are obtained at native resolution without enabling upscaling technologies like DLSS, FSR, or XeSS, providing a true measure of each video card’s raw power.
Nvidia’s current RTX 40-series GPUs are built on the Ada Lovelace architecture, introducing features such as DLSS 3 Frame Generation and DLSS 3.5 Ray Reconstruction. AMD’s RX 7000-series leverages the RDNA 3 architecture, offering a range of desktop cards. Intel’s Arc Alchemist architecture marks Intel’s entry into the dedicated GPU market, competing primarily with previous generation mid-range cards.
For those interested in historical data, our previous generation GPU benchmarks from 2020-2021, conducted on a Core i9-9900K testbed, are available on page two. We also maintain a legacy GPU hierarchy, sorted by theoretical performance, for reference.
The following tables present our performance-based video card compare chart, ranking GPUs based on gaming benchmarks at 1080p “ultra” settings for rasterization and 1080p “medium” for ray tracing. Price, power consumption, efficiency, and features are not factored into these rankings, focusing solely on raw performance. Our current 2024 results are based on an Alder Lake Core i9-12900K testbed. Let’s delve into the benchmarks and explore the detailed video card compare chart.
GPU Benchmarks Ranking 2025: Rasterization Performance
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU benchmarks hierarchy charts showing relative performance of video cards across generations at 1080p ultra settings.
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Video card comparison chart showing 1080p medium setting performance across different GPUs.
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Graphics card benchmark chart displaying 1440p ultra performance for various video cards.
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: 4K ultra gaming performance comparison chart for high-end video cards.
For our comprehensive video card compare chart, we have tested a vast range of GPUs released over the last seven years, along with some older models, at 1080p medium, 1080p ultra, and in some cases, 1440p ultra and 4K ultra settings. The table is sorted by 1080p ultra performance, which is a popular resolution for many gamers. All scores are normalized relative to the top-performing card at 1080p ultra, the RTX 4090.
The summary chart above visualizes the relative performance of GPUs across multiple generations at 1080p ultra. Swipe through the gallery to see charts for 1080p medium, 1440p, and 4K ultra settings. While some very low-end or niche cards are excluded for clarity, this video card compare chart is largely comprehensive. The table below provides detailed data for an even wider selection of older GPUs.
Our standard GPU benchmarks 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 FPS score in our chart is the geometric mean of frame rates across these eight games, providing an overall performance metric. The “Specifications” column links to in-depth reviews for each GPU, offering further details.
GPU Rasterization Hierarchy: Key Performance Insights
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.
Analyzing our video card compare chart for rasterization, the RTX 4090 leads at 1080p ultra, but its dominance becomes more pronounced at higher resolutions. While only marginally faster than the RTX 4080 Super at 1080p ultra, the RTX 4090 extends its lead to 9% at 1440p and a significant 25% at 4K. It’s important to note that our FPS scores are a blend of average and minimum frame rates, with a greater emphasis on average FPS.
This video card compare chart intentionally excludes ray tracing and DLSS results to maintain a level playing field across all generations of graphics cards. DLSS, being an Nvidia-specific technology (DLSS 3 being exclusive to RTX 40-series), would skew direct comparisons. For those interested in upscaling performance, our RTX 4070 review includes DLSS 2/3 and FSR 2 upscaling benchmarks.
The RTX 4090, while top-tier, comes with a premium price tag, though not drastically higher than the previous generation RTX 3090. However, the RTX 4090 represents a more significant performance leap over its predecessor compared to the 3090’s incremental gain over the 3080. Nvidia maximized core counts, clock speeds, and power limits to achieve unparalleled performance with the 4090. However, its high MSRP and potential 16-pin connector power draw concerns should be considered. Furthermore, due to high demand from the AI sector, the RTX 4090 is often priced well above MSRP, sometimes exceeding $2000.
Stepping down from the RTX 4090, the video card compare chart reveals a close competition between the RTX 4080 Super and RX 7900 XTX, particularly at higher resolutions. CPU bottlenecks become more apparent at 1080p, impacting performance scaling at lower resolutions. As we transition to a new testbed in the near future, incorporating our 13900K testing results, our video card compare chart will reflect these updated benchmarks.
(Image credit: Intel)
Alt text: Intel logo representing Intel Arc GPUs in the video card comparison.
Beyond the latest AMD and Nvidia releases, our video card compare chart demonstrates that older RX 6000- and RTX 30-series GPUs still offer viable performance. If you own a card from these generations, upgrading might not be immediately necessary. Intel’s Arc GPUs also occupy an interesting space in this hierarchy, presenting themselves as a compelling alternative, especially with driver improvements.
Through continuous testing and driver updates, Intel’s Arc GPUs now perform reliably across our benchmark suite. While efficiency may not be their strongest point, the overall performance and competitive pricing of the A750, as shown in our video card compare chart, make them a noteworthy option.
Looking at previous generations in our video card compare chart, the RTX 20-series, GTX 16-series, and RX 5000-series GPUs are distributed throughout the rankings. Generally, newer architectures provide a generational performance uplift of one to two “model upgrades.” For instance, the RTX 2080 Super performs comparably to the RTX 3060 Ti, and the RX 5700 XT closely matches the newer, more budget-friendly RX 6600 XT.
Our video card compare chart also highlights the growing VRAM demands of modern games at ultra settings. GPUs with 4GB of VRAM or less struggle significantly, and we now recommend a minimum of 8GB VRAM for modern gaming, with 12GB or more being preferable for mainstream GPUs and 16GB or higher for high-end cards. Older cards like the GTX 1060 3GB and GTX 1050 encountered issues running some of our tests, underscoring the importance of adequate VRAM.
Next, we’ll examine the ray tracing performance hierarchy within our video card compare chart.
(Image credit: Techland)
Alt text: Dying Light 2 image showcasing ray tracing settings and visual quality impact.
Ray Tracing GPU Benchmarks Ranking 2025
Enabling ray tracing significantly increases GPU workload, often leading to substantial frame rate drops, especially in demanding games within our DXR test suite. Our ray tracing benchmarks in this video card compare chart are conducted using “medium” and “ultra” ray tracing settings. “Medium” typically employs medium graphics presets with ray tracing effects enabled (set to “medium” if available, otherwise “on”), while “ultra” maximizes all ray tracing options.
Due to the performance demands of ray tracing, we sort our ray tracing video card compare chart 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, making higher resolution testing impractical. However, we include 1080p ultra results for reference.
Our ray tracing benchmark suite includes five games that heavily utilize DirectX 12 / DX12 Ultimate API: Bright Memory Infinite, Control Ultimate Edition, Cyberpunk 2077, Metro Exodus Enhanced, and Minecraft. The FPS score in our video card compare chart is the geometric mean across these five games, scaled relative to the RTX 4090, the fastest GPU in the chart.
To glimpse the future of ray tracing, explore our Alan Wake 2 benchmarks, where path tracing pushes even high-end GPUs to their limits, requiring upscaling for playable frame rates on non-Nvidia cards. However, it’s crucial to remember that games where ray tracing significantly enhances visuals remain limited. For most games, rasterization remains a more practical rendering approach.
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Ray tracing GPU benchmarks hierarchy chart at 1080p medium settings.
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Video card compare chart for ray tracing performance at 1080p ultra.
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Ray tracing video card comparison at 1440p ultra settings.
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: 4K ultra ray tracing performance chart comparing high-end GPUs.
GPU Ray Tracing Hierarchy: Key Performance Insights
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 |
Our ray tracing video card compare chart clearly positions the RTX 4090 as the dominant force in ray-traced gaming. Nvidia’s Ada Lovelace architecture showcases significant ray tracing enhancements, evident in the RTX 4090’s performance. Further performance gains in ray tracing are anticipated with technologies like SER, OMM, and DMM, along with DLSS 3, though the latter’s frame generation can introduce latency.
For a glimpse into extreme ray tracing scenarios, we tested faster GPUs in Cyberpunk 2077‘s RT Overdrive mode and Alan Wake 2, both utilizing full path tracing. Black Myth: Wukong also incorporates full ray tracing. These titles demonstrate the potential future of gaming visuals and the increasing importance of upscaling and AI-driven techniques like frame generation.
Even at 1080p medium, a relatively moderate DXR setting, the RTX 4090 outpaces all competitors, leading the previous generation RTX 3090 Ti by 41%. This lead expands to 53% at 1080p ultra and nearly 64% at 1440p. While Nvidia’s initial claims of “2x to 4x faster than the RTX 3090 Ti” (including DLSS 3 Frame Generation) are ambitious, the RTX 4090 still achieves a remarkable 72% performance increase over the 3090 Ti at 4K, even without DLSS 3.
AMD’s approach to ray tracing remains secondary, prioritizing rasterization performance and cost-effectiveness through chiplet designs in RDNA 3 GPUs. Consequently, AMD’s ray tracing performance, as shown in our video card compare chart, lags behind Nvidia. The RX 7900 XTX roughly matches Nvidia’s RTX 3080 12GB, placing it just ahead of the RTX 4070 in ray tracing workloads. While RDNA 3 offers some RT performance improvements, they are not substantial. For example, the RX 7800 XT is on par with the RX 6800 XT in rasterization but shows a 10% improvement in DXR performance.
Intel’s Arc A7-series GPUs exhibit a balanced performance profile, with the A750 outperforming the RTX 3060 overall. With ongoing driver optimizations, Arc GPUs are becoming increasingly competitive in ray tracing, as reflected in our updated video card compare chart.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 Founders Edition, the top performing video card in the comparison chart.
Our RTX 4090 review details the performance uplift provided by DLSS Quality mode in DXR games, boosting performance by up to 78% at 4K ultra. DLSS 3 frame generation further enhances frame rates by 30% to 100%, although caution is advised when interpreting FPS with frame generation due to potential latency and perceived smoothness issues.
Overall, when DLSS 2 is enabled, the RTX 4090 in our ray tracing benchmark suite achieves nearly four times the performance of AMD’s RX 7900 XTX—a significant performance gap. While AMD’s FSR 2 and FSR 3 can improve performance, DLSS maintains an edge in game support and image quality. Only two games in our DXR suite support FSR2, compared to full DLSS2 support across all tested DXR titles, with one game also supporting DLSS3.
Without FSR2, AMD’s top GPUs can only achieve playable 60+ fps at 1080p ultra in ray-traced games, with 40-50 fps averages at 1440p. Native 4K DXR gaming remains challenging for most GPUs, with only the RTX 3090 Ti and above consistently exceeding 30 fps in our composite score.
AMD’s FSR 3 frame generation, similar to DLSS3, introduces latency and requires Anti-Lag+ integration for optimal performance on AMD GPUs. Non-AMD cards may experience higher latency penalties with FSR 3. While FSR 3 shows promise in titles like Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora, its quality and latency remain inconsistent across different games.
Mid-range GPUs like the RTX 3070 and RX 6700 XT are generally limited to 1080p ultra ray tracing, while lower-tier DXR-capable GPUs struggle even at 1080p medium. The RX 6500 XT, for instance, delivers single-digit frame rates in most of our ray tracing tests, with Control failing to run at medium settings due to VRAM limitations (requiring at least 6GB VRAM for ray tracing).
Interestingly, Intel’s Arc A380 slightly outperforms the RX 6500 XT in ray tracing, despite having fewer RT units (8 vs. AMD’s 16 Ray Accelerators). Intel’s deep dive into Arc ray tracing hardware highlights Arc’s potential, though performance is ultimately limited by the number of RTUs. The top-end A770, with 32 RTUs, barely surpasses the RTX 3060 in DXR performance and outperforms AMD’s RX 6750 XT in DXR, demonstrating the relative weakness of AMD’s RDNA 2 architecture in ray tracing.
Comparing Nvidia’s RTX generations in our video card compare chart, the RTX 2060 outperforms the newer RTX 3050, while the RTX 2080 Ti falls slightly behind the RTX 3070. The RTX 2080 Ti offered roughly double the performance of the RTX 2060, whereas the RTX 3090 provides about triple the performance of the RTX 3050, showcasing generational performance scaling differences.
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Tom’s Hardware GPU testbed setup for benchmarking video cards.
Test System and Methodology for GPU Benchmarks
Our GPU benchmarks are conducted using a meticulously configured test system to ensure consistent and reliable results for our video card compare chart. We’ve utilized several test PC configurations over time. Our latest 2022–2024 setup employs an Alder Lake CPU and platform, while previous benchmarks used a Coffee Lake and Z390 platform. The newest charts (below) feature a Core i9-13900K with an updated game selection. Here are the specifications of our primary testbeds:
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 procedure for each graphics card in our video card compare chart remains consistent. We perform a “warm-up” benchmark run after game launch, followed by at least two benchmark passes for each setting/resolution combination. We prioritize result consistency, using the faster of two runs if they are within 0.5% variance. For larger discrepancies, we conduct additional tests to determine accurate performance baselines.
We rigorously analyze benchmark data, identifying and retesting anomalies (e.g., RTX 3070 Ti, RTX 3070, and RTX 3060 Ti performance outliers) to ensure data integrity in our video card compare chart. We aim for performance ranges within 5% increments between these card tiers.
Given the time-intensive nature of GPU testing, driver updates and game patches inevitably emerge, potentially influencing benchmark results. We periodically re-evaluate sample cards to validate our video card compare chart data, retesting affected games and GPUs as needed. We also consider incorporating new, relevant game benchmarks into our suite based on popularity and suitability, adhering to our benchmark selection criteria.
GPU Benchmarks: Individual Game Charts
While our summary tables offer a concise performance overview, we provide individual game charts for both standard and ray tracing tests for users seeking granular data within our video card compare chart. To maintain clarity, these charts primarily include recent GPUs. These charts are based on our updated test PC, which may result in slight performance variations from the summary tables due to test relevance.
These charts are current as of November 11, 2024.
GPU Benchmarks — 1080p Medium
Image 1 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: 1080p medium gaming benchmark chart for Borderlands 3.
Image 2 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Far Cry 6 video card performance at 1080p medium settings.
Image 3 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Flight Simulator GPU benchmark results at 1080p medium.
Image 4 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Forza Horizon 5 graphics card comparison at 1080p medium.
Image 5 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Horizon Zero Dawn video card benchmarks at 1080p medium.
Image 6 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Red Dead Redemption 2 GPU performance chart at 1080p medium.
Image 7 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Total War Warhammer 3 video card benchmark at 1080p medium settings.
Image 8 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Watch Dogs Legion GPU benchmark chart at 1080p medium.
Image 9 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Average FPS across all games at 1080p medium settings.
Image 10 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: 1% Low FPS across all games at 1080p medium settings.
Image 11 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Borderlands 3 1% Low FPS GPU performance at 1080p medium.
Image 12 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Far Cry 6 1% Low FPS video card performance at 1080p medium settings.
Image 13 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Flight Simulator 1% Low FPS GPU benchmark results at 1080p medium.
Image 14 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Forza Horizon 5 1% Low FPS graphics card comparison at 1080p medium.
Image 15 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Horizon Zero Dawn 1% Low FPS video card benchmarks at 1080p medium.
Image 16 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Red Dead Redemption 2 1% Low FPS GPU performance chart at 1080p medium.
Image 17 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Total War Warhammer 3 1% Low FPS video card benchmark at 1080p medium settings.
Image 18 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Watch Dogs Legion 1% Low FPS GPU benchmark chart at 1080p medium.
Image 19 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU price comparison chart for different video cards.
Image 20 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU power consumption comparison chart for various video cards.
Image 21 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU clock speed comparison chart for different video cards.
Image 22 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU temperature comparison chart under load for different video cards.
GPU Benchmarks — 1080p Ultra
Image 1 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: 1080p ultra gaming benchmark chart for Borderlands 3.
Image 2 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Far Cry 6 video card performance at 1080p ultra settings.
Image 3 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Flight Simulator GPU benchmark results at 1080p ultra.
Image 4 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Forza Horizon 5 graphics card comparison at 1080p ultra.
Image 5 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Horizon Zero Dawn video card benchmarks at 1080p ultra.
Image 6 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Red Dead Redemption 2 GPU performance chart at 1080p ultra.
Image 7 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Total War Warhammer 3 video card benchmark at 1080p ultra settings.
Image 8 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Watch Dogs Legion GPU benchmark chart at 1080p ultra.
Image 9 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Average FPS across all games at 1080p ultra settings.
Image 10 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: 1% Low FPS across all games at 1080p ultra settings.
Image 11 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Borderlands 3 1% Low FPS GPU performance at 1080p ultra.
Image 12 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Far Cry 6 1% Low FPS video card performance at 1080p ultra settings.
Image 13 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Flight Simulator 1% Low FPS GPU benchmark results at 1080p ultra.
Image 14 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Forza Horizon 5 1% Low FPS graphics card comparison at 1080p ultra.
Image 15 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Horizon Zero Dawn 1% Low FPS video card benchmarks at 1080p ultra.
Image 16 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Red Dead Redemption 2 1% Low FPS GPU performance chart at 1080p ultra.
Image 17 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Total War Warhammer 3 1% Low FPS video card benchmark at 1080p ultra settings.
Image 18 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Watch Dogs Legion 1% Low FPS GPU benchmark chart at 1080p ultra.
Image 19 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU price comparison chart for different video cards at 1080p ultra.
Image 20 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU power consumption comparison chart for video cards at 1080p ultra.
Image 21 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU clock speed comparison chart at 1080p ultra settings.
Image 22 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU temperature comparison chart at 1080p ultra load.
GPU Benchmarks — 1440p Ultra
Image 1 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: 1440p ultra gaming benchmark chart for Borderlands 3.
Image 2 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Far Cry 6 video card performance at 1440p ultra settings.
Image 3 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Flight Simulator GPU benchmark results at 1440p ultra.
Image 4 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Forza Horizon 5 graphics card comparison at 1440p ultra.
Image 5 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Horizon Zero Dawn video card benchmarks at 1440p ultra.
Image 6 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Red Dead Redemption 2 GPU performance chart at 1440p ultra.
Image 7 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Total War Warhammer 3 video card benchmark at 1440p ultra settings.
Image 8 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Watch Dogs Legion GPU benchmark chart at 1440p ultra.
Image 9 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Average FPS across all games at 1440p ultra settings.
Image 10 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: 1% Low FPS across all games at 1440p ultra settings.
Image 11 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Borderlands 3 1% Low FPS GPU performance at 1440p ultra.
Image 12 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Far Cry 6 1% Low FPS video card performance at 1440p ultra settings.
Image 13 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Flight Simulator 1% Low FPS GPU benchmark results at 1440p ultra.
Image 14 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Forza Horizon 5 1% Low FPS graphics card comparison at 1440p ultra.
Image 15 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Horizon Zero Dawn 1% Low FPS video card benchmarks at 1440p ultra.
Image 16 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Red Dead Redemption 2 1% Low FPS GPU performance chart at 1440p ultra.
Image 17 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Total War Warhammer 3 1% Low FPS video card benchmark at 1440p ultra settings.
Image 18 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Watch Dogs Legion 1% Low FPS GPU benchmark chart at 1440p ultra.
Image 19 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU price comparison chart for different video cards at 1440p ultra.
Image 20 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU power consumption comparison chart for video cards at 1440p ultra.
Image 21 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU clock speed comparison chart at 1440p ultra settings.
Image 22 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU temperature comparison chart at 1440p ultra load.
GPU Benchmarks — 4K Ultra
Image 1 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: 4K ultra gaming benchmark chart for Borderlands 3.
Image 2 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Far Cry 6 video card performance at 4K ultra settings.
Image 3 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Flight Simulator GPU benchmark results at 4K ultra.
Image 4 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Forza Horizon 5 graphics card comparison at 4K ultra.
Image 5 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Horizon Zero Dawn video card benchmarks at 4K ultra.
Image 6 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Red Dead Redemption 2 GPU performance chart at 4K ultra.
Image 7 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Total War Warhammer 3 video card benchmark at 4K ultra settings.
Image 8 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Watch Dogs Legion GPU benchmark chart at 4K ultra.
Image 9 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Average FPS across all games at 4K ultra settings.
Image 10 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: 1% Low FPS across all games at 4K ultra settings.
Image 11 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Borderlands 3 1% Low FPS GPU performance at 4K ultra.
Image 12 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Far Cry 6 1% Low FPS video card performance at 4K ultra settings.
Image 13 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Flight Simulator 1% Low FPS GPU benchmark results at 4K ultra.
Image 14 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Forza Horizon 5 1% Low FPS graphics card comparison at 4K ultra.
Image 15 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Horizon Zero Dawn 1% Low FPS video card benchmarks at 4K ultra.
Image 16 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Red Dead Redemption 2 1% Low FPS GPU performance chart at 4K ultra.
Image 17 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Total War Warhammer 3 1% Low FPS video card benchmark at 4K ultra settings.
Image 18 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Watch Dogs Legion 1% Low FPS GPU benchmark chart at 4K ultra.
Image 19 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU price comparison chart for different video cards at 4K ultra.
Image 20 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU power consumption comparison chart for video cards at 4K ultra.
Image 21 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU clock speed comparison chart at 4K ultra settings.
Image 22 of 22
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU temperature comparison chart at 4K ultra load.
GPU Benchmarks — Power, Clocks, and Temperatures
Beyond raw performance, power consumption, clock speeds, and temperatures are crucial factors when selecting a video card. Our video card compare chart includes dedicated charts for these metrics:
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU power consumption chart comparing different video cards under load.
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Video card clock speed comparison chart during gaming benchmarks.
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU temperature comparison chart under stress testing.
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Detailed GPU power consumption breakdown chart.
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU clock speed variation chart during benchmarks.
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Video card temperature fluctuation chart under load.
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Power consumption comparison chart for high-end GPUs.
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU temperature comparison chart under extended gaming sessions.
Image 1 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU power consumption chart at idle and load states.
Image 2 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Video card clock speed chart at different load levels.
Image 3 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: GPU temperature chart at idle and maximum load.
Image 4 of 4
(Image credit: Tom’s Hardware)
Alt text: Detailed GPU power consumption analysis chart.
For legacy GPU hierarchy data, please visit page two of our article. Join the discussion and share your thoughts on our video card compare chart in our forums!
Choosing a Graphics Card: Utilizing Our Video Card Compare Chart
Which graphics card best suits your needs? Our video card compare chart, encompassing numerous GPUs from the last four generations, is designed to assist you in making an informed decision. The highest-performing cards, unsurprisingly, are from Nvidia’s latest Ada Lovelace and AMD’s RDNA 3 architectures. AMD GPUs excel in rasterization but tend to trail behind Nvidia when ray tracing is enabled, particularly with DLSS. However, with GPU prices becoming more reasonable, now is an opportune time to upgrade.
Beyond gaming, GPUs are essential for various applications. Our comprehensive GPU reviews include professional GPU benchmarks for content creation and other GPU-intensive workloads. Generally, a capable gaming GPU translates well to demanding computational tasks. Top-tier cards enable high-resolution, high-frame-rate gaming with maxed-out settings and excel in content creation. Mid-range and lower-end cards necessitate adjusting settings for optimal gaming and benchmark performance.
For gaming-centric builds, the CPU is equally critical. Even the most powerful GPU will be bottlenecked by an underperforming CPU. Consult our Best CPUs for gaming guide and CPU Benchmarks Hierarchy to ensure CPU-GPU synergy for your desired gaming experience. Use our video card compare chart in conjunction with CPU performance data to build a balanced and powerful system.
- 1
- 2
Current page: Video Card Compare Chart 2025
Next Page 2020-2021 and Legacy GPU Benchmarks Hierarchy
Stay Informed: Subscribe to Tom’s Hardware Newsletter
Get the latest tech news and in-depth reviews from Tom’s Hardware directly in your inbox.
TOPICS
Jarred Walton
Jarred Walton is a senior editor at Tom’s Hardware specializing in GPUs. With extensive experience in tech journalism since 2004, including contributions to AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer, Jarred is our resident GPU expert, tracking graphics trends and game performance from early 3D accelerators to today’s cutting-edge GPUs.
