Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

by Chris Angelini December 15, 2015 at 3:00 AM

Here is a resource to help you judge if a graphics card is a reasonable value: The gaming GPU hierarchy chart groups GPUs by performance.

Best Graphics Cards for the Money is a hand-picked list of the top values, based on benchmark data, for your gaming machine. Most recently, we tweaked our approach to making recommendations, aiming them at resolutions and detail presets, rather than just pricing. The result was a significant shuffling. Don’t hesitate to let us know what you think of the change — or our choices — in the comments section.

But when you want to know how your existing GPU fares against the one on your wish list, then consult our GPU hierarchy chart, which groups graphics cards with similar overall performance levels into tiers. The top tier contains the highest-performing cards available, and performance decreases as you go down from there.

You can use this hierarchy to compare the pricing between two cards, to see which one is a better deal, and also to determine if an upgrade is worthwhile. I don’t recommend upgrading your graphics card unless the replacement card is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel, and you may not even notice a worthwhile difference.

Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

Nvidia GeForce	AMD Radeon	Intel
GTX 1080	-
GTX 1070	R9 295X2
Titan X, 980 Ti	HD 7990, R9 Fury X
GTX 980, 690, Titan Black	R9 Fury, Fury Nano
GTX 780, 780 Ti, 970, Titan	R9 290, 290X, 390X, 390
GTX 590, 680, 770	HD 6990, 7970 GHz Ed., R9 280X, 380, 380X
GTX 580, GTX 670, GTX 960	HD 5970, 7870 LE (XT), 7950, 280, 285
GTX 660 Ti, GTX 760, GTX 950	HD 7870, R9 270, R9 270X, R7 370
GTX 295, 480, 570, 660	HD 4870 X2, 6970, 7850, R7 265
GTX 470, 560 Ti, 560 Ti 448 Core, 650 Ti Boost, 750 Ti	HD 4850 X2, 5870, 6950, R7 260X
GTX 560, 650 Ti, 750	HD 5850, 6870, 7790
9800 GX2, 285, 460 256-bit, 465	HD 6850, 7770, R7 260, R7 360	Integrated: Iris Pro Graphics 6200
GTX 260, 275, 280, 460 192-bit, 460 SE, 550 Ti, 560 SE, GT 650, GT 740 GDDR5	HD 4870, 5770, 4890, 5830, 6770, 6790, 7750 (GDDR5), R7 250 (GDDR5), R7 250E
8800 Ultra, 9800 GTX, 9800 GTX+, GTS 250, GTS 450	HD 3870 X2, 4850, 5750, 6750, 7750 (DDR3), R7 250 (DDR3)	Integrated: HD Graphics 530
8800 GTX, 8800 GTS 512 MB, GT 545 (GDDR5), GT 730 64-bit GDDR5	HD 4770
8800 GT 512 MB, 9800 GT, GT 545 (DDR3), GT 640 (DDR3), GT 740 DDR3	HD 4830, HD 5670, HD 6670 (GDDR5), HD 7730 (GDDR5)
8800 GTS 640 MB, 9600 GT, GT 240 (GDDR5)	HD 2900 XT, HD 3870, HD 5570 (GDDR5), HD 6570 (GDDR5)
8800 GS, 9600 GSO, GT 240 (DDR3)	HD 3850 512 MB, HD 4670, HD 5570 (DDR3), HD 6570 (DDR3), HD 6670 (DDR3), HD 7730 (DDR3), R7 240
8800 GT 256 MB, 8800 GTS 320 MB, GT 440 GDDR5, GT 630 GDDR5, GT 730 128-bit GDDR5	HD 2900 Pro, HD 3850 256 MB, 5550 (GDDR5)
7950 GX2, GT 440 DDR3, GT 630 DDR3, GT 730 128-bit DDR3	X1950 XTX, HD 4650 (DDR3), 5550 (DDR3) Integrated: HD 7660D
7800 GTX 512, 7900 GTO, 7900 GTX, GT 430, GT 530	X1900 XT, X1950 XT, X1900 XTX
7800 GTX, 7900 GT, 7950 G, GT 220 (DDR3)	X1800 XT, X1900 AIW, X1900 GT, X1950 Pro, HD 2900 GT, HD 5550 (DDR2) Integrated: HD 7560D
7800 GT, 7900 GS, 8600 GTS, 9500 GT (GDDR3), GT 220 (DDR2)	X1800 XL, X1950 GT, HD 4650 (DDR2), HD 6450, R5 230 Integrated: HD 6620G, 6550D, 7540D
6800 Ultra, 7600 GT, 7800 GS, 8600 GS, 8600 GT (GDDR3), 9500 GT (DDR2)	X800 XT (& PE), X850 XT (& PE), X1650 XT, X1800 GTO, HD 2600 XT, HD 3650 (DDR3), HD 3670 Integrated: 6520G, 6530D, 7480D	Integrated:Intel HD Graphics 4000
6800 GT, 6800 GS (PCIe), 8600 GT (DDR2), GT 520	X800 XL, X800 GTO2/GTO16, HD 2600 Pro, HD 3650 (DDR2), Integrated: 6410D, 6480G
6800 GS (AGP)	X800 GTO 256 MB, X800 Pro, X850 Pro, X1650 GT Integrated: 6370D, 6380G
6800, 7300 GT GDDR3, 7600 GS, 8600M GS	X800, X800 GTO 128 MB, X1600 XT, X1650 Pro
6600 GT, 6800LE, 6800 XT, 7300 GT (DDR2), 8500 GT, 9400 GT	9800 XT, X700 Pro, X800 GT, X800 SE, X1300 XT, X1600 Pro, HD 2400 XT, HD 4350, HD 4550, HD 5450 Integrated: HD 6310, HD 6320	Integrated: Intel HD Graphics 3000
FX 5900, FX 5900 Ultra, FX 5950 Ultra, 6600 (128-bit) Integrated: 9300, 9400	9700, 9700 Pro, 9800, 9800 Pro, X700, X1300 Pro, X1550, HD 2400 Pro Integrated: HD 3200, HD 3300, HD 4200, HD 4250, HD 4290, HD 6250, HD 6290
FX 5800 Ultra, FX 5900 XT	9500 Pro, 9600 XT, 9800 Pro (128-bit), X600 XT, X1050 (128-bit)	Integrated: Intel HD Graphics 2000
4 Ti 4600, 4 Ti 4800, FX 5700 Ultra, 6200, 8300, 8400 G, G 210, G 310	9600 Pro, 9800 LE, X600 Pro, HD 2300 Integrated: Xpress 1250	Integrated: Intel HD Graphics
4 Ti4200, 4 Ti4400, 4 Ti4800 SE, FX 5600 Ultra, FX 5700, 6600 (64-bit), 7300 GS, 8400M GS, 9300M G, 9300M GS	9500, 9550, 9600, X300, X1050 (64-bit)	Integrated: Intel HD Graphics
3 Ti500, FX 5200 Ultra, FX 5600, FX 5700 LE, 6200 TC, 6600 LE, 7200 GS, 7300 LE Integrated: 8200, 8300	8500, 9100, 9000 PRO, 9600 LE, X300 SE, X1150	Integrated: GMA X4500
3, 3 Ti200, FX 5200 (128-bit), FX 5500	9000, 9200, 9250
FX 5200 (64 bit) Integrated: 6100, 6150, 7025, 7050	9200 SE Integrated: Xpress 200M, Xpress 1000, Xpress 1150	Integrated: GMA X3000, X3100, X3500
2 GTS, 4 MX 440, 2 Ultra, 2 Ti, 2 Ti 200	7500	Integrated: GMA 3000, 3100
256, 2 MX 200, 4 MX 420, 2 MX 400	SDR, LE, DDR, 7000, 7200	Integrated: GMA 500, 900, 950
Nvidia TNT	Rage 128	Discrete: Intel 740

The list, as it stands now, emphasizes discrete desktop graphics. At one time, it included mobile rankings and a more complete collection of integrated solutions. Too much of that data was estimated and derived, though, so we thinned out the chart’s density.

Intel’s graphics engines remain (for the ones we’ve tested), and we’d like to re-incorporate more AMD APUs as we place their performance with greater accuracy. But it’s unlikely that we’ll try to graft mobile graphics back into this tapestry.

As always, leave your feedback on the placement of our hierarchy. We’re happy to correct oversights or make adjustments when they prove warranted.

MORE: Best Graphics Cards
MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: Best Monitors
MORE: Best Power Supplies
MORE: How To Build A PC

Chris Angelini is Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware. Follow him on Twitter and Google+.

Follow us on Facebook, Google+, RSS, Twitter and YouTube.

Comment
Firstname

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Title
Subject
Title

97 comments

Your comment

Top Comments

CerianK Dec 15, 2015, 9:38 AM

Also missing the GTX 950, which is an important budget-oriented consideration as an alternative for those also looking at GTX 960, R9 380 or R7 370.
17

Other Comments

mapesdhs Dec 15, 2015, 9:04 AM

I'll add this from my own testing: 650 Ti 2GB often fails to beat a GTX 460 (the former is at least one level too high IMO), and although a 7970 GHz will easily beat one 580, it's nowhere near as fast as two so I wouldn't say it's on a par with a 590. Kinda need more divisions really in the chart, too many inbetween possibilities, and some cards are not as good as the chart suggests.
4
RCPG Dec 15, 2015, 9:05 AM

The AMD 380X is not on the list.
6
SoerenHedemand Dec 15, 2015, 9:33 AM

Iris Pro 6300 is missing.
3
mapesdhs Dec 15, 2015, 9:35 AM

233738 said:

The AMD 380X is not on the list.

Well spotted. Also, the 380 is too high up, reviews showed it's about the same (plus/minus) as a 960. 380X should be where the 380 is now.
-2
CerianK Dec 15, 2015, 9:38 AM

Also missing the GTX 950, which is an important budget-oriented consideration as an alternative for those also looking at GTX 960, R9 380 or R7 370.
17
2Be_or_Not2Be Dec 15, 2015, 9:54 AM

It would be nice to see a separate chart that shows DirectX 12 support. To keep it small for now, only the GPUs that actually support it could be shown, rather than a Y/N field for all of the ones currently on the desktop GPU chart.
0
Kawi6rr Dec 15, 2015, 11:05 AM

According to most of the benchmarks around the web the 390x should be on par with the 980.
3
Kawi6rr Dec 15, 2015, 11:14 AM

Quote pulled from your best graphics cards article referring to the AMD R9 390x.

Quote:

"That’s enough of an improvement to battle Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 980. Except the 980 sells for quite a bit more, leaving AMD to claim our recommendation for 2560x1440 in the latest games with detail settings maxed out."
2
dgingeri Dec 15, 2015, 11:15 AM

This may be the case with Windows 7 and 8, but things switch around a bit in Windows 10 thanks to Nvidia botching their support for certain features in DX12.
-1
mapesdhs Dec 15, 2015, 11:17 AM

1864409 said:

According to most of the benchmarks around the web the 390x should be on par with the 980.

toms' review showed it to be significantly slower than a 980 (by that I mean a bigger difference than many of the gaps used in the above chart) in just about every case for HD and 1440p, only edging ahead in some cases at 4K (though the frame rates were kinda naff at that high a res), and of course using far more power. Biggest difference was for ACU. See:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-radeon-r9-390x-r9-380-r7-370,review-33233-6.html
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-radeon-r9-390x-r9-380-r7-370,review-33233-9.html
0
skyrien Dec 15, 2015, 12:23 PM

Where would my old 3dfx Voodoo 2 fit here? I see the original TNT that I upgraded it to...
2
Karsten75 Dec 15, 2015, 5:05 PM

Would be nice if the chart could be color-coded to show current and previous generation GPUs.
-3
hellcinder99 Dec 15, 2015, 5:58 PM

I'm still running an HD 7990. Looks like I wont be replacing it anytime soon.
3
Karsten75 Dec 15, 2015, 7:58 PM

545568 said:

I'm still running an HD 7990. Looks like I wont be replacing it anytime soon.

Ha! I'm running a 7950 in this machine and a 77nn (7750?) in my family 'puter. Will last me a few more years, I'm hoping.

I'm waiting for the G-sync vs Freesync thing to shake out, I don't want to own a betamax monitor or GPU.
3
Adi88 Dec 16, 2015, 8:22 AM

Can't wait to see the difference when I finally get a new system in 2016. Moving on from my 9600GT will make a world of difference. I'm hoping to jump up up 13 or 14 tiers to a 980 or 980Ti.
3
Achoo22 Dec 16, 2015, 2:32 PM

This chart is solid gold, especially with AMD re-re-re-releasing all their cards over and over with different names and price points. Even a techie can forget that a $350 7870 is exactly equal to a $130 r7 265.
0
Tony-Jones101 Dec 16, 2015, 3:06 PM

These guys are missing out on a great card in there line up. the R9 270.. pisses on the R7 360 and you can get the 270 for around 90 quid. Lets me run Bf4 maxed out with X2 anti aliasing no AO. gets me around 35 fps but if i lower a few notches on hungry sliders/fx then gets me 40 odd to 50, why anybody needs 100 fps i dont know. for the price of some of these cards you can get 2 R9 270's and run them in xfire and your on 100 fps all on ULTRA in Bf4, if you need 100 fps that is. I do wonder does fps affect you bullet impact speed ? o yea before i got the R9 270 i went with the R7 250 and it was terrible. not much better than the HD 5450 and thats a 20 quid card. I sent it back and went with the R9, Great decision.
0
nate1994 Dec 16, 2015, 6:55 PM

@Tomy-Jones101, r9 270's in 2-way xfire will definitely triple the fps, possibly beat my GTX 980 and work well on every game
0
ErikVinoya Dec 17, 2015, 1:28 AM

Quote:

This may be the case with Windows 7 and 8, but things switch around a bit in Windows 10 thanks to Nvidia botching their support for certain features in DX12.

Still too early to jump to conclusions with DX12. NVidia doesn't have proper async compute, but AMD doesn't have Conservative Raster. We still need more benchmark tools and games to test before saying X is better than Y.
0
Mike Stewart Dec 17, 2015, 2:23 AM

There are so many cards that are MISSING from the chart !
Now where is 250X, 380X , 950 !!!! what is this>???
Tomshardware can you please do your job properly !?
0