Radeon RX 6950 XT vs Iris Plus Graphics 950

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Plus Graphics 950 and Radeon RX 6950 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Iris Plus Graphics 950
15 Watt
6.02

6950 XT outperforms Plus Graphics 950 by a whopping 1016% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking64325
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data33.77
Power efficiency30.9015.44
ArchitectureGeneration 11.0 (2019−2021)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameIce Lake GT2Navi 21
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release dateno data10 May 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,099

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores5125120
Core clock speed400 MHz1925 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz2324 MHz
Number of transistorsno data26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology10 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt335 Watt
Texture fill rate32.00743.7
Floating-point processing power1.024 TFLOPS23.8 TFLOPS
ROPs8128
TMUs32320
Ray Tracing Coresno data80
L0 Cacheno data1.3 MB
L1 Cacheno data1 MB
L2 Cacheno data4 MB
L3 Cacheno data128 MB

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x1PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
WidthIGP3-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 8-pin

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared16 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data576.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCLno data2.1
Vulkan-1.3

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 950 6.02
RX 6950 XT 67.19
+1016%

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 950 2519
RX 6950 XT 28072
+1014%
Samples: 3603

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 HD18−20
−1111%
218
+1111%
1440p10−12
−1230%
133
+1230%
4K7−8
−1100%
84
+1100%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data5.04
1440pno data8.26
4Kno data13.08

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 351
+0%
351
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 161
+0%
161
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 349
+0%
349
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 339
+0%
339
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 143
+0%
143
+0%
Far Cry 5 181
+0%
181
+0%
Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 237
+0%
237
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 318
+0%
318
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 128
+0%
128
+0%
Dota 2 199
+0%
199
+0%
Far Cry 5 173
+0%
173
+0%
Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 229
+0%
229
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 172
+0%
172
+0%
Metro Exodus 189
+0%
189
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 376
+0%
376
+0%
Valorant 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 122
+0%
122
+0%
Dota 2 167
+0%
167
+0%
Far Cry 5 164
+0%
164
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 216
+0%
216
+0%
Valorant 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 236
+0%
236
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 500−550
+0%
500−550
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 153
+0%
153
+0%
Metro Exodus 120
+0%
120
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 450−500
+0%
450−500
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 93
+0%
93
+0%
Far Cry 5 163
+0%
163
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 58
+0%
58
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 174
+0%
174
+0%
Metro Exodus 77
+0%
77
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 144
+0%
144
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 46
+0%
46
+0%
Dota 2 141
+0%
141
+0%
Far Cry 5 124
+0%
124
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 950 and RX 6950 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6950 XT is 1111% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6950 XT is 1230% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6950 XT is 1100% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.02 67.19
Chip lithography 10 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 335 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 950 has 2133% lower power consumption.

RX 6950 XT, on the other hand, has a 1016% higher aggregate performance score, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6950 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Iris Plus Graphics 950 in performance tests.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.9 12 votes

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 2985 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6950 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Iris Plus Graphics 950 or Radeon RX 6950 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.