GeForce RTX 2060 Super vs ATI Radeon X1950 GT

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon X1950 GT and GeForce RTX 2060 Super, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

ATI X1950 GT
2007
256 MB GDDR3, 57 Watt
0.28

RTX 2060 Super outperforms ATI X1950 GT by a whopping 15193% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking135491
Place by popularitynot in top-10015
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data46.15
Power efficiency0.3416.81
ArchitectureR500 (2005−2007)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameRV570TU106
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date29 January 2007 (18 years ago)9 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$140 $399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

ATI X1950 GT and RTX 2060 Super have a nearly equal value for money.

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 coresno data2176
Core clock speed500 MHz1470 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1650 MHz
Number of transistors330 million10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)57 Watt175 Watt
Texture fill rate6.000224.4
Floating-point processing powerno data7.181 TFLOPS
ROPs1264
TMUs12136
Tensor Coresno data272
Ray Tracing Coresno data34

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 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin1x 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed600 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth38.4 GB/s448.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI-+
G-SYNC support-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Readyno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model3.06.5
OpenGL2.04.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-7.5
DLSS-+

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.

ATI X1950 GT 0.28
RTX 2060 Super 42.82
+15193%

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.

ATI X1950 GT 106
RTX 2060 Super 16498
+15464%

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 HD0−1119
1440p-0−168
4K-0−144

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.35
1440pno data5.87
4Kno data9.07

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 168
+0%
168
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 91
+0%
91
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 88
+0%
88
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 124
+0%
124
+0%
Battlefield 5 117
+0%
117
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 73
+0%
73
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 79
+0%
79
+0%
Far Cry 5 135
+0%
135
+0%
Fortnite 266
+0%
266
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 152
+0%
152
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 123
+0%
123
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 147
+0%
147
+0%
Valorant 298
+0%
298
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 73
+0%
73
+0%
Battlefield 5 101
+0%
101
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 64
+0%
64
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 71
+0%
71
+0%
Dota 2 200
+0%
200
+0%
Far Cry 5 126
+0%
126
+0%
Fortnite 175
+0%
175
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 147
+0%
147
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 90
+0%
90
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 139
+0%
139
+0%
Metro Exodus 81
+0%
81
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 143
+0%
143
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 163
+0%
163
+0%
Valorant 293
+0%
293
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 93
+0%
93
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 59
+0%
59
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 62
+0%
62
+0%
Dota 2 185
+0%
185
+0%
Far Cry 5 118
+0%
118
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120
+0%
120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 92
+0%
92
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 123
+0%
123
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 85
+0%
85
+0%
Valorant 180
+0%
180
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 148
+0%
148
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 86
+0%
86
+0%
Metro Exodus 49
+0%
49
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 268
+0%
268
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 74
+0%
74
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 88
+0%
88
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 98
+0%
98
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 98
+0%
98
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 83
+0%
83
+0%
Metro Exodus 31
+0%
31
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 59
+0%
59
+0%
Valorant 210
+0%
210
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 48
+0%
48
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10
+0%
10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 19
+0%
19
+0%
Dota 2 121
+0%
121
+0%
Far Cry 5 46
+0%
46
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 67
+0%
67
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 49
+0%
49
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 48
+0%
48
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.28 42.82
Recency 29 January 2007 9 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 57 Watt 175 Watt

ATI X1950 GT has 207% lower power consumption.

RTX 2060 Super, on the other hand, has a 15192.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 2060 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1950 GT in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


ATI Radeon X1950 GT
Radeon X1950 GT
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Super
GeForce RTX 2060 Super

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.


3.9 39 votes

Rate Radeon X1950 GT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 13353 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 2060 Super on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon X1950 GT or GeForce RTX 2060 Super, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.