GPU Performance Hierarchy 2024: Video Cards Ranked

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Yup. That's the XTXH core on that ASRock RX 6900 XT Formula. Although AMD gave the core a physically different name they, in their infinite wisdom, decided that cards with the XTXH core will still be the RX 6900 XT, causing endless confusion. These 'special' cores are heavily binned and provide extra voltage and power ceilings at stock for both the core and memory.

On my lowly reference/Zotac 6900 XT I'm hitting a 2600MHz peak core and 2100MHz VRAM clock, all while undervolting and keeping it cool and quiet. No XTXH core needed here. 😉
Zotac boosted the power limit and GPU clocks with the XTXH core, but it's still running tame 16Gbps GDDR6 memory and not the 18Gbps stuff used in the 6900 XT liquid cooled edition.
 
Yup. Same memory chips but I thought it was higher voltage, power, and frequency ceiling(?)
Mine is the actual reference (XTX) AMD card, bought direct from AMD (didn't mean to confuse, sorry). I believe these are made by PC Partner Group, which is the same company who makes Zotac cards, but it's not an actual Zotac-branded GPU.
 
Last edited:
Is it by any chance possible to put the old tiered legacy table back in? Or have it somewhere, at least?

It seemed reasonably useful for having the cards from Pascal and Polaris era, and earlier, to compare to each other. I'm a little unsure GFLOPs in the New Legacy Table (yeah, that phrase sounds weird in my head) is accurate enough, or if it distorts the picture.
 
Is it by any chance possible to put the old tiered legacy table back in? Or have it somewhere, at least?

It seemed reasonably useful for having the cards from Pascal and Polaris era, and earlier, to compare to each other. I'm a little unsure GFLOPs in the New Legacy Table (yeah, that phrase sounds weird in my head) is accurate enough, or if it distorts the picture.
Honestly, I hated that table, because I didn't think it conveyed anything useful. It was literally just a list of GPUs with no real sorting that I could discern. I'm very sad you don't appreciate my new GFLOPS list, because that took literally an entire day to put together!

Unfortunately, I assumed people who were interested in the "legacy" table could just pull it up in the Way Back Machine... but now I have discovered that the URL is specifically excluded from the archive. <Sigh> And our CMS has no history of previous versions of a document, so... I apparently killed it. <Double sigh> But all is not lost, as someone (well, multiple someones) cloned the Hierarchy over the past couple of years. So here's the last version... I'm not sure how this will look when I paste it here, but hopefully this will suffice.

Also useful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_graphics_processing_units

Legacy GPU Hierarchy
Below is our legacy desktop GPU hierarchy with historical comparisons dating back to the 1990s. We have not tested most of these cards in many years, driver support has ended on lots of models, and relative rankings are relatively coarse. We group cards into performance tiers, pairing disparate generations where overlap occurs.

Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
Nvidia Titan XP
Titan X (Pascal)
GTX 1080 Ti
GTX 1080RX Vega 64
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GTX Titan X (Maxwell)R9 295X2
GTX 1070 Ti
GTX 1070RX Vega 56
GTX 980 TiR9 Fury X
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GTX Titan Black
GTX 980R9 Fury
GTX 690R9 Fury Nano
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GTX 1060 6GBRX 580 8GB
RX 480 8GB
GTX TitanRX 570 4G
GTX 1060 3GBRX 470 4GB
R9 390X
GTX 970R9 390
GTX 780 TiR9 290X
GTX 780R9 290
HD 7990
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
R9 380X
GTX 770R9 380
GTX 680R9 280X
GTX 590HD 7970 GHz Edition
HD 6990
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GTX 1050 TiR9 285
GTX 960R9 280
GTX 670HD 7950
GTX 580HD 7870 LE (XT)
HD 5970
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GTX 1050RX 560 4G
GTX 950RX 460
GTX 760R7 370
GTX 660 TiR9 270X
R9 270
HD 7870
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GTX 660R7 265
GTX 570HD 7850
GTX 480HD 6970
GTX 295HD 4870 X2
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GTX 750 Ti
GTX 650 Ti BoostR7 260X
GTX 560 Ti (448 Core)HD 6950
GTX 560 TiHD 5870
GTX 470HD 4850 X2
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GTX 750HD 7790
GTX 650 TiHD 6870
GTX 560HD 5850
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GT 1030 ( On -)RX 550
GTX 465R7 360
GTX 460 (256-bit)R7 260
GTX 285HD 7770
9800 GX2HD 6850
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GT 740 GDDR5R7 250E
GT 650R7 250 (GDDR5)
GTX 560 SEHD 7750 (GDDR5)
GTX 550 TiHD 6790
GTX 460 SEHD 6770
GTX 460 (192-bit)HD 5830
GTX 280HD 5770
GTX 275HD 4890
GTX 260HD 4870
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GTS 450R7 250 (DDR3)
GTS 250HD 7750 (DDR3)
9800 GTX+HD 6750
9800 GTXHD 5750
8800 UltraHD 4850
HD 3870 X2
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GT 730 (64-bit, GDDR5)
GT 545 (GDDR5)HD 4770
8800 GTS (512MB)
8800 GTX
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GT 740 DDR3HD 7730 (GDDR5)
GT 640 (DDR3)HD 6670 (GDDR5)
GT 545 (DDR3)HD 5670
9800 GTHD 4830
8800 GT (512MB)
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GT 240 (GDDR5)HD 6570 (GDDR5)
9600 GTHD 5570 (GDDR5)
8800 GTS (640MB)HD 3870
HD 2900 XT
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
R7 240
GT 240 (DDR3)HD 7730 (DDR3)
9600 GSOHD 6670 (DDR3)
8800 GSHD 6570 (DDR3)
HD 5570 (DDR3)
HD 4670
HD 3850 (512MB)
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GT 730 (128-bit, GDDR5)
GT 630 (GDDR5)HD 5550 (GDDR5)
GT 440 (GDDR5)HD 3850 (256MB)
8800 GTS (320MB)HD 2900 Pro
8800 GT (256MB)
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GT 730 (128-bit, DDR3)HD 7660D (integrated)
GT 630 (DDR3)HD 5550 (DDR3)
GT 440 (DDR3)HD 4650 (DDR3)
7950 GX2X1950 XTX
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GT 530
GT 430
7900 GTXX1900 XTX
7900 GTOX1950 XT
7800 GTX 512X1900 XT
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
HD 7560D (integrated)
GT 220 (DDR3)HD 5550 (DDR2)
7950 GHD 2900 GT
7900 GTX1950 Pro
7800 GTXX1900 GT
X1900 AIW
X1800 XT
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
HD 7540D (integrated)
GT 220 (DDR2)HD 6550D (integrated)
9500 GT (GDDR3)HD 6620G (integrated)
8600 GTSR5 230
7900 GSHD 6450
7800 GTHD 4650 (DDR2)
X1950 GT
X1800 XL
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
7480D (integrated)
6530D (integrated)
9500 GT (DDR2)6520G (integrated)
8600 GT (GDDR3)HD 3670
8600 GSHD 3650 (DDR3)
7800 GSHD 2600 XT
7600 GTX1800 GTO
6800 UltraX1650 XT
X850 XT PE
X800 XT PE
X850 XT
X800 XT
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
GT 5206480G (integrated)
8600 GT (DDR2)6410D (integrated)
6800 GS (PCIe)HD 3650 (DDR2)
6800 GTHD 2600 Pro
X800 GTO2/GTO16
X800 XL
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
6380G (integrated)
6370D (integrated)
6800 GS (AGP)X1650 GT
X850 Pro
X800 Pro
X800 GTO (256MB)
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
8600M GSX1650 Pro
7600 GSX1600 XT
7300 GT (GDDR3)X800 GTO (128MB)
6800X800
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
HD 6320 (integrated)
HD 6310 (integrated)
HD 5450
9400 GTHD 4550
8500 GTHD 4350
7300 GT (DDR2)HD 2400 XT
6800 XTX1600 Pro
6800LEX1300 XT
6600 GTX800 SE
X800 GT
X700 Pro
9800 XT
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
HD 6290 (integrated)
HD 6250 (integrated)
9400 (integrated)HD 4290 (integrated)
9300 (integrated)HD 4250 (integrated)
6600 (128-bit)HD 4200 (integrated)
FX 5950 UltraHD 3300 (integrated)
FX 5900 UltraHD 3200 (integrated)
FX 5900HD 2400 Pro
X1550
X1300 Pro
X700
9800 Pro
9800
9700 Pro
9700
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
X1050 (128-bit)
FX 5900 XTX600 XT
FX 5800 Ultra9800 Pro (128-bit)
9600 XT
9500 Pro
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
G 310
G 210
8400 GXpress 1250 (integrated)
8300HD 2300
6200X600 Pro
FX 5700 Ultra9800 LE
4 Ti 48009600 Pro
4 Ti 4600
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
9300M GS
9300M G
8400M GSX1050 (64-bit)
7300 GSX300
FX 5700, 6600 (64-bit)9600
FX 5600 Ultra9550
4 Ti4800 SE9500
4 Ti4400
4 Ti4200
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
8300 (integrated)
8200 (integrated)
7300 LEX1150
7200 GSX300 SE
6600 LE9600 LE
6200 TC9100
FX 5700 LE8500
FX 5600
FX 5200 Ultra
3 Ti500
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
FX 55009250
FX 5200 (128-bit)9200
3 Ti2009000
3
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
FX 7050 (integrated)Xpress 1150 (integrated)
FX 7025 (integrated)Xpress 1000 (integrated)
FX 6150 (integrated)Xpress 200M (integrated)
FX 6100 (integrated)9200 SE
FX 5200 (64-bit)
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
2 Ti 200
2 Ti7500
2 Ultra
4 MX 440
2 GTS
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
2 MX 4007200
4 MX 4207000
2 MX 200DDR
256LE
SDR
Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
Nvidia TNTRage 128
 
  • Like
Reactions: King_V
Not to say that the new ones not useful... but the coaster clusters in the old one kept similar performance together.

There was a sorting of a kind, but looking it over and recalling it is out of the question at the moment as I'm on mobile.

That said, thanks for bringing it up, even if just as a historic reference. Or maybe I just got confortable with it.

It really is surprising, though, that the CMS doesn't keep previous versions of documents. That seems bad. Like, really bad.
 
Not to say that the new ones not useful... but the coaster clusters in the old one kept similar performance together.

There was a sorting of a kind, but looking it over and recalling it is out of the question at the moment as I'm on mobile.

That said, thanks for bringing it up, even if just as a historic reference. Or maybe I just got confortable with it.

It really is surprising, though, that the CMS doesn't keep previous versions of documents. That seems bad. Like, really bad.
Can't you see my table above? That's a copy/paste of the old Legacy collection of GPUs. Like I said, though, I don't find it particularly useful. Looking at Wiki pages for release dates and specs is about as meaningful, plus it's missing quite a few GPUs and it's not at all clear what the sort order is supposed to be. Near the top of the list, it's "higher is better," but later on things get very nebulous and there's not even a list of specs or release dates to help out. Plus, there's just a whole bunch of groupings with no indication of the difference between them. Anyway, if you like the above table instead of the new list, it's here in the comments. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: King_V
The new chart is great.
In some instances, the GFLOPS sorting isn't the best way to show expected 'gaming performance'. For instance, I've had both a Vega 64 and a Titan Xp. In all the games I played, AAA games used by TH during reviews, the Titan Xp beat the Vega 64 at 1440p. Every. Single. One. The rest of the hardware was identical. You do a good job explaining the GFLOPS limitation though so no biggie.

For 'gaming GPU ranking' it's best to do exactly what you're doing in the newest list. One request though. Could you list all the games that are used to come up with this ranking?
 
The new chart is great.
In some instances, the GFLOPS sorting isn't the best way to show expected 'gaming performance'. For instance, I've had both a Vega 64 and a Titan Xp. In all the games I played, AAA games used by TH during reviews, the Titan Xp beat the Vega 64 at 1440p. Every. Single. One. The rest of the hardware was identical. You do a good job explaining the GFLOPS limitation though so no biggie.

For 'gaming GPU ranking' it's best to do exactly what you're doing in the newest list. One request though. Could you list all the games that are used to come up with this ranking?
I think I just forgot to add the list of games. Here it is, and I'll add it to the article tomorrow sometime:

Standard Benchmarks:
Borderlands 3
Far Cry 6
Flight Simulator
Forza Horizon 5
Horizon Zero Dawn
Red Dead Redemption 2
Total War Warhammer 3
Watch Dogs Legion

DXR Benchmarks:
Bright Memory Infinite
Control
Cyberpunk 2077
Fortnite
Metro Exodus Enhanced
Minecraft
 
As someone that is now getting serious about getting a new graphics card, it is just like a techtuber video.

All of the information is accurate, but none of it is actually useful for making buying decisions. I am seeing a best case scenario, which isn't useful. What is actually useful is real world scenarios.

1080 Med, 1080 Ultra, 1440p Ultra, 4K Ultra isn't actually useful.

I recommend adding 1440p High; and 4K High. You know, resolutions people actually use.
 
As someone that is now getting serious about getting a new graphics card, it is just like a techtuber video.

All of the information is accurate, but none of it is actually useful for making buying decisions. I am seeing a best case scenario, which isn't useful. What is actually useful is real world scenarios.

1080 Med, 1080 Ultra, 1440p Ultra, 4K Ultra isn't actually useful.

I recommend adding 1440p High; and 4K High. You know, resolutions people actually use.
At some point it's just going to be too much data to replicate every single time time a new GPU comes out. I think the 1440p ultra and 4K ultra are close enough for you to gauge relative performance.

@JarredWaltonGPU, could you give a 1-2 liner detailing your testing methodology? Something like, "run built-in benchmark 10 times, drop the lowest and highest scores and averaged the rest."
Game version numbers would also be useful as games are rarely optimized right out of the gate and regularly recieve one or two big performance boost updates within the first 6 months of release.

Oh, also, is the 1080 Ti going to make an appearance on the new chart? I think it would be good to show the performance of some of the newest 'money-grubber' GPU releases compared to a golden oldie that is still very relevant today. Maybe cut it off at the top performing card from 3 generations ago...? (not counting exotics like the Titan series or dual-GPU on single PCB)
 
Last edited:
At some point it's just going to be too much data to replicate every single time time a new GPU comes out. I think the 1440p ultra and 4K ultra are close enough for you to gauge relative performance.

@JarredWaltonGPU, could you give a 1-2 liner detailing your testing methodology? Something like, "run built-in benchmark 10 times, drop the lowest and highest scores and averaged the rest."
Game version numbers would also be useful as games are rarely optimized right out of the gate and regularly recieve one or two big performance boost updates within the first 6 months of release.

Oh, also, is the 1080 Ti going to make an appearance on the new chart? I think it would be good to show the performance of some of the newest 'money-grubber' GPU releases compared to a golden oldie that is still very relevant today. Maybe cut it off at the top performing card from 3 generations ago...? (not counting exotics like the Titan series or dual-GPU on single PCB)
I run one pass of each benchmark to "warm up" the GPU after launching the game, then I run at least two passes at each setting/resolution combination. Some games don't require a restart between settings changes, many do. If the two runs are basically identical (within 0.5% or less difference), I use the faster of the two runs. If there's more than a small difference, I run the test twice more and basically try to figure out what "normal" performance is supposed to be.

While the above might seem like it would be potentially prone to mistakes, I've been doing this for years and the first two runs (plus warm up) are usually a good indication of performance. I also look at all the data, so when I test for example RTX 3070 and RTX 3060 Ti and RTX 3070 Ti, I know they're all generally going to perform within a narrow range — 3070 Ti is about 5% (give or take) faster than 3070, which is about 5% (again, give or take) faster than 3060 Ti. If, after I put all the data together, I see games where there are clear outliers (i.e. performance is more than 10% higher for the cards I just mentioned, I'll go back and retest whatever cards are showing the anomaly and confirm that it is either correct due to some other factor, or that my earlier test results are no longer valid.

Given each card requires about eight hours to run all the tests (at least for a card where I run all four resolutions/settings), there's obviously going to be lag between the latest drivers, game patches, and when a card gets tested. I've started the new hierarchy tests with the current generation cards, and I'm now going through previous generation cards. Some cards were tested with 511.65 and 22.2.1, others were tested with 511.79 and 22.2.2 — I updated drivers mostly because I added Total War: Warhammer 3 to the suite. When I've finished all the testing of previous generation GPUs in the next month or so, I'll go back and retest probably RTX 3080 and RX 6800 XT on the latest drivers and game patches and check for any major differences in performance. If there's clearly a change in performance, for the better, I'll start running through the potentially impacted GPUs again. This is usually limited to one or two games that improve, though, so I don't have to retest everything every couple of months.
 
I run one pass of each benchmark to "warm up" the GPU after launching the game, then I run at least two passes at each setting/resolution combination. Some games don't require a restart between settings changes, many do. If the two runs are basically identical (within 0.5% or less difference), I use the faster of the two runs. If there's more than a small difference, I run the test twice more and basically try to figure out what "normal" performance is supposed to be.

While the above might seem like it would be potentially prone to mistakes, I've been doing this for years and the first two runs (plus warm up) are usually a good indication of performance. I also look at all the data, so when I test for example RTX 3070 and RTX 3060 Ti and RTX 3070 Ti, I know they're all generally going to perform within a narrow range — 3070 Ti is about 5% (give or take) faster than 3070, which is about 5% (again, give or take) faster than 3060 Ti. If, after I put all the data together, I see games where there are clear outliers (i.e. performance is more than 10% higher for the cards I just mentioned, I'll go back and retest whatever cards are showing the anomaly and confirm that it is either correct due to some other factor, or that my earlier test results are no longer valid.

Given each card requires about eight hours to run all the tests (at least for a card where I run all four resolutions/settings), there's obviously going to be lag between the latest drivers, game patches, and when a card gets tested. I've started the new hierarchy tests with the current generation cards, and I'm now going through previous generation cards. Some cards were tested with 511.65 and 22.2.1, others were tested with 511.79 and 22.2.2 — I updated drivers mostly because I added Total War: Warhammer 3 to the suite. When I've finished all the testing of previous generation GPUs in the next month or so, I'll go back and retest probably RTX 3080 and RX 6800 XT on the latest drivers and game patches and check for any major differences in performance. If there's clearly a change in performance, for the better, I'll start running through the potentially impacted GPUs again. This is usually limited to one or two games that improve, though, so I don't have to retest everything every couple of months.
How do you handle ambient temp and heat saturation of mainboard components between different GPU tests?
I'd imagine that the first card to get tested, after the system's been off, will have a slight advantage over the second, third, etc. card in line on the same motherboard.

This could actually be a separate article. A through test of the effects of motherboard heat saturation on benchmarking results. (don't know that this has been done before)
 
How do you handle ambient temp and heat saturation of mainboard components between different GPU tests?
I'd imagine that the first card to get tested, after the system's been off, will have a slight advantage over the second, third, etc. card in line on the same motherboard.

This could actually be a separate article. A through test of the effects of motherboard heat saturation on benchmarking results. (don't know that this has been done before)
The system needs to be shut down to swap GPUs, and that's generally more than enough time for everything to cool off. Plus, I'm not running the CPU overclocked, so it shouldn't be taxed too much. There's potential variation in ambient temperatures, though I keep my office generally in the 70-75F range. The periodic retesting of GPUs also looks for anomalies, and they're pretty rare thankfully.
 
The system needs to be shut down to swap GPUs, and that's generally more than enough time for everything to cool off. Plus, I'm not running the CPU overclocked, so it shouldn't be taxed too much. There's potential variation in ambient temperatures, though I keep my office generally in the 70-75F range. The periodic retesting of GPUs also looks for anomalies, and they're pretty rare thankfully.
Do you have any plans to put the GTX 1080 Ti in your new GPU hierarchy chart?
 
Do you have any plans to put the GTX 1080 Ti in your new GPU hierarchy chart?
Yeah, I actually have a bunch of the previous gen cards now tested and just need to update the article charts, tables, etc. with the data. Actually, I want to finish testing the Vega/Polaris generation of AMD GPUs before I push the next update live, which should be in the next day or two hopefully.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alceryes
For those sticking with this thread (since the other got vaporized), I've just done another major update. New stuff this round:

RTX 3090 Ti retakes the crown
Lots of older GPUs now tested and included

I'm nearly finished with all previous generation cards that I'm going to retest. The only GPUs that are still missing:

  1. GTX 1650 GDDR6
  2. RX 550 4GB (yeah, I've got one...)
  3. GTX 1060 3GB
  4. GT 1030 2GB (ugh...)
  5. Titan V
  6. Titan Xp
  7. Titan X (Maxwell)
  8. R9 Fury X
  9. R9 390
If there are any other GPUs you would like to see tested (and several of the above are questionable inclusions already), sound off here!
 
Oh, you know how it is . . if there's a "What idiot would want to see THAT card on the list??!" then it's probably me! 🤣

But nothing that occurs to me offhand. Yet. (insert foreboding music here)

EDIT: wait, GTX 1060 3GB!
 
Oh, you know how it is . . if there's a "What idiot would want to see THAT card on the list??!" then it's probably me! 🤣

But nothing that occurs to me offhand. Yet. (insert foreboding music here)

EDIT: wait, GTX 1060 3GB!
It's coming! It will fail on RDR2 at 1080p ultra, but I think it will at least try to run everything else. LOL. The lack of an RDR2 score will probably push it below the GTX 1050 Ti, though.
 
As someone that is now getting serious about getting a new graphics card, it is just like a techtuber video.

All of the information is accurate, but none of it is actually useful for making buying decisions. I am seeing a best case scenario, which isn't useful. What is actually useful is real world scenarios.

1080 Med, 1080 Ultra, 1440p Ultra, 4K Ultra isn't actually useful.

I recommend adding 1440p High; and 4K High. You know, resolutions people actually use.
Looking at the Steam Hardware Survey as of March 2022, 68% of users are using 1080p resolution. The second most common resolution used is 1440p at ~10%. But third place is 1368x768 at 6%.

So given what people "actually use", 1368x768 should be tested too. 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: King_V
Looking at the Steam Hardware Survey as of March 2022, 68% of users are using 1080p resolution. The second most common resolution used is 1440p at ~10%. But third place is 1368x768 at 6%.

So given what people "actually use", 1368x768 should be tested too. 😉
Screw you! 😛

It's because Steam includes a lot of older laptops running crappy displays with integrated graphics. I would wager 99% of the 1366x768 results are from such laptops, and probably a huge chunk of the 1080p stuff is laptops as well.

I do test 720p on super low-end GPUs (like Intel and AMD integrated), though I haven't done that for the new hierarchy yet. Those chips are like my lowest concern right now, and they're probably not even going to manage to run 1080p ultra, which means I'll test 720p medium and 1080p medium and put them at the very bottom of the list.
 
I do test 720p on super low-end GPUs (like Intel and AMD integrated), though I haven't done that for the new hierarchy yet. Those chips are like my lowest concern right now, and they're probably not even going to manage to run 1080p ultra, which means I'll test 720p medium and 1080p medium and put them at the very bottom of the list.
It would be interesting to see how iGPUs and budget video cards (whatever that means today) fare, especially if devices similar to the Steam Deck pick up... well, steam.

But yeah, I'm in no rush to see that data. Notebookcheck fills that niche if I really want to see some data.
 
@King_V will be pleased to see the GTX 1060 3GB is now in the charts. As I sort of suspected, at 1080p ultra it ends up below the GTX 1050 Ti, mostly because of the "zero" result in RDR2. (Technically I use a "1.0" result for benchmarks that fail to run, because I used the geometric mean of the scores and zeroes don't work with that.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: King_V
And the irony is, until now, I've only ever owned a GTX 1080 from NVidia.

I mean, well, and a Riva 128.

Bummer, though, that there's no easy way to compensate for a "can't run this particular game, but otherwise would be higher in the charts" situation.

Are there other cards that got hit with a similar issue (unable to run at least one game in the suite)? For a moment I wondered if it was a "minimum VRAM requirement" kind of thing, but then if it was, for RDR2 at least, I figured the 1050 and 780 would've failed as well.
 
And the irony is, until now, I've only ever owned a GTX 1080 from NVidia.

I mean, well, and a Riva 128.

Bummer, though, that there's no easy way to compensate for a "can't run this particular game, but otherwise would be higher in the charts" situation.

Are there other cards that got hit with a similar issue (unable to run at least one game in the suite)? For a moment I wondered if it was a "minimum VRAM requirement" kind of thing, but then if it was, for RDR2 at least, I figured the 1050 and 780 would've failed as well.
Have you not noticed the image?
Xdnx7sssjbq3hSASkiFjsV.png


So yeah, anything with less than 4GB fails at 1080p ultra on RDR2. And the GTX 780 failed to run Far Cry 6 as well — the game says it needs GTX 900-series, not sure exactly why.

Actually, I've updated the charts to just remove the "could not run" results rather than counting them as a "0" (one), which gives much improved standings that aren't entirely accurate, but whatever. It's as good as I'll get without testing more games and/or using different settings. 🤷

4k8wpFVdo5pwGDJ9iZ4PrF.png