Radeon RX 6950 XT vs GeForce GTS 250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 250 and Radeon RX 6950 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6950 XT outperforms GTS 250 by a whopping 4652% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 973 | 15 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.08 | 26.82 |
| Power efficiency | 0.71 | 15.04 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | G92B | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 10 May 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $1,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 6950 XT has 33425% better value for money than GTS 250.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 128 | 5120 |
| Core clock speed | 738 MHz | 1925 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2324 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 335 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 44.93 | 743.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3871 TFLOPS | 23.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 128 |
| TMUs | 64 | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 2x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1100 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 70.4 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | Two Dual Link DVI | 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 4−5
−5425%
| 221
+5425%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−6600%
| 134
+6600%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−8500%
| 86
+8500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 49.75
−900%
| 4.97
+900%
|
| 1440p | 99.50
−1113%
| 8.20
+1113%
|
| 4K | 199.00
−1457%
| 12.78
+1457%
|
- RX 6950 XT has 900% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 6950 XT has 1113% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 6950 XT has 1457% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 204
+0%
|
204
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 161
+0%
|
161
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 247
+0%
|
247
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 198
+0%
|
198
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 500
+0%
|
500
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 152
+0%
|
152
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 168
+0%
|
168
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 181
+0%
|
181
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 343
+0%
|
343
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 290−300
+0%
|
290−300
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 442
+0%
|
442
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 172
+0%
|
172
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 146
+0%
|
146
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 153
+0%
|
153
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 167
+0%
|
167
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 396
+0%
|
396
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 153
+0%
|
153
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 192
+0%
|
192
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 153
+0%
|
153
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 294
+0%
|
294
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 174
+0%
|
174
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 174
+0%
|
174
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 174
+0%
|
174
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 141
+0%
|
141
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 172
+0%
|
172
+0%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
This is how GTS 250 and RX 6950 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6950 XT is 5425% faster in 1080p
- RX 6950 XT is 6600% faster in 1440p
- RX 6950 XT is 8500% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.54 | 73.18 |
| Recency | 4 March 2009 | 10 May 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 335 Watt |
GTS 250 has 123.3% lower power consumption.
RX 6950 XT, on the other hand, has a 4651.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 685.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6950 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
