Desktop GPU Performance Hierarchy Table

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 GeForceAMD RadeonIntel
Titan X (Pascal)


GTX 1080
-

GTX 1070
R9 295X2

Titan X (Maxwell), 980 Ti
HD 7990, R9 Fury X

GTX 1060, 980, 690, Titan BlackR9 Fury, Fury Nano

GTX 780, 780 Ti, 970, TitanRX 480, 470, 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
RX 460, 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 TiHD 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 GS9500, 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 2007500Integrated: GMA 3000, 3100
256, 2 MX 200, 4 MX 420, 2 MX 400SDR, LE, DDR, 7000, 7200Integrated: GMA 500, 900, 950
Nvidia TNTRage 128Discrete: 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.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
15 comments
    Your comment
  • rush21hit
    Wait, so it's really true HD5850 weaker than 750Ti? Haven't look for actual data but I'd just take what Tom's said here. And now I feel so old...
    *I remember the times I had to do some serious fasting to buy it. Also did the same thing for HD4670 before that and X1650XT before that too.
    0
  • AndrewJacksonZA
    Hi guys

    Thank you for keeping your chart updated, it's useful for me and I'm sure for many other people too. :-)

    I don't understand your reasoning for putting the GTX 1060 one tier above the RX 480. Please could you explain it to me? Based on benchmark evidence from your 1060 review http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-pascal,4679-3.html as well as other reviews on the web (because you guys didn't include a Vulkan API in your benchmarks like, saaaaayyyyyy... Doom) I disagree. I would put them on the same tier.

    If I had to only focus on DX11, I'd put the 1060 on a tier above the 480.
    If I had to only focus on DX12 and Vulkan, I'd put the 480 on a tier above the 1060.
    If I had to only focus on all three, I think that the same tier is fair.

    In case any readers are looking for a Doom benchmark and somehow hasn't read one yet, go to [H]ardOCP: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/07/19/nvidia_geforce_gtx_1060_founders_edition_review/4
    I'm pointing you to that site specifically because they seem, to me, to be a site that's biased towards Nvidia, but they do have the integrity to be fair and honest when the evidence demonstrates the opposite, as it is in this case.

    @Toms team regarding Doom:
    On 19 July 2016 Igor said that you guys were waiting on id to release a patch to enable Vulkan async compute on Nvidia hardware.

    On 23 July 2016 Jason Leavey posted that Vulkan is now supported on AMD and Nvidia hardware with the appropriate drivers - it's just that async compute isn't supported on Nvidia hardware yet but there'll be an update "soon," just as Igor said.

    That was over a month ago. Has id given any evidence that the patch is coming "soon?" Any date estimate whatsoever, perhaps? Is it ever coming out? Please add the Doom Vulkan benchmarks.
    4
  • Cavalierhero
    The 1060 is definitely not a tier above the rx480.
    2
  • dasper
    I am wondering the same as ANDREWJACKSONZA. Just today I was reading/watching reviews of Deus Ex and Doom on how the 480 is faster than the 1060 and yet it is put on a lower tier. Both cards were released close to the same time on the latest technology in the same price tier. What is the excuse for them not being on the same level?
    3
  • ffleader1
    How much Nvidia pay you to do this, exactly?
    You put 390X and 290 on the same tier, 1060 is above 480, and 1060 is equal to a Fury?
    2
  • iispyderii
    http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-R9-390X-vs-AMD-R9-290/3497vs2171

    The 390X is that much better than the 290 and they are on the same tier but the 1060 and the 480 ARE NOT!? You guys looking like major shills here.
    1
  • John_455
    What a joke, this ranking is clearly biased towards nvidia. The 1060 is junk compared to the 480.
    0
  • uglyduckling81
    The 1060 isn't junk. It's a little slower than a 980. It might be a spot too high on the list but then again it does outperform a 970 in every title which a 480 can't claim.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1060-pascal,4679-3.html
    0
  • AndrewJacksonZA
    @dasper: I just read some Deus Ex:MD performance reviews and I agree.

    @ugliyduckling81: While the 1060 can perform better than the 970 in all of those tests, it gets beaten by the 480 in others.
    1
  • AlexFromAU
    GTX 1070, GTX 980 Ti and R9 Fury X should all be on the same tier - as they all have same performance.

    GTX 1060 is NOT better than a RX 480
    1
  • Retrogame
    I find this a handy reference. Reading various benchmark reviews (and waiting for an updated set of GPU charts!) you can see that your mileage varies depending on the application. When it comes to this chart, remember its purpose, it's to show you about how many models up the food chain you need to go before, in the editors' opinion, the upgrade is worth spending any money to do.

    I would love to see this suggested addition: Beside the name of each model, if it could also show month/year of the release into the market of the chipset. It would help provide a bit more context.

    For example, the computer I am on as I write this has a R9 380 GPU. It's in the same ballpark as the HD 6990.

    So you have R9 380 (6/2015) with a Tonga rebrand chip, almost same as R9 285 (9/2014) almost same as dual gpu Antillies HD 6990 (3/2011) But whereas the 380 is a 2015 "mainstream" card launched for $200 or so in 2015, the 6990 was a dual gpu monstrosity that cost $700 four years earlier and provided about the same performance, but through single-card crossfire, plus the issues of more heat and power consumption. Quite a big difference in a 4 year gap. And beside it is GTX 770, a Kepler series chip updated and repackaged in 5/2013 for $400. I find such comparisons of generations and pricing (and the Red Vs Green war!) quite interesting and educational.

    To circle back, this is why a table like this is very helpful. An upgrade is only an upgrade if actual performance is substantially better than what you're running after cutting through the marketing hype! I'm GPU and CPU agnostic, I build platforms that use anything.
    0
  • ffleader1
    146562 said:
    I find this a handy reference. Reading various benchmark reviews (and waiting for an updated set of GPU charts!) you can see that your mileage varies depending on the application. When it comes to this chart, remember its purpose, it's to show you about how many models up the food chain you need to go before, in the editors' opinion, the upgrade is worth spending any money to do. I would love to see this suggested addition: Beside the name of each model, if it could also show month/year of the release into the market of the chipset. It would help provide a bit more context. For example, the computer I am on as I write this has a R9 380 GPU. It's in the same ballpark as the HD 6990. So you have R9 380 (6/2015) with a Tonga rebrand chip, almost same as R9 285 (9/2014) almost same as dual gpu Antillies HD 6990 (3/2011) But whereas the 380 is a 2015 "mainstream" card launched for $200 or so in 2015, the 6990 was a dual gpu monstrosity that cost $700 four years earlier and provided about the same performance, but through single-card crossfire, plus the issues of more heat and power consumption. Quite a big difference in a 4 year gap. And beside it is GTX 770, a Kepler series chip updated and repackaged in 5/2013 for $400. I find such comparisons of generations and pricing (and the Red Vs Green war!) quite interesting and educational. To circle back, this is why a table like this is very helpful. An upgrade is only an upgrade if actual performance is substantially better than what you're running after cutting through the marketing hype! I'm GPU and CPU agnostic, I build platforms that use anything.


    The previous Hierarchy table was helpful. However, are you telling me that selling a Rx 480 and buy a 1060 is an upgrade, but selling a 290 to buy a 390X is not an upgrade?
    For some reason, they messed this one up, with Nvidia bias.
    0
  • penn919
    I believe the rule of thumb was that you shouldn't upgrade unless the graphics card is at least two tiers above your existing card; therefore, they wouldn't recommend upgrading to a 1060 from an RX 480. I personally wouldn't upgrade unless the graphics card is at least three tiers above or more. ie, HD 7950 --> R9 Nano
    0
  • penn919
    I would like to see the AMD Radeon Pro Duo Added to this chart.
    0