GPU Performance Hierarchy: Video Cards Ranked from Fastest to Slowest

When you want to run games or do high-end creative work like 4K video editing, your graphics card plays the biggest role in determining performance. Get a good GPU, and you can play recent games at smooth frame rates; get a great one and you can enjoy those games at high resolution, with the special effects turned up. 

To help you decide which graphics card you need, we've developed the GPU hierarchy below, which ranks all the current chips from fastest to slowest. For comparison purposes, we've assigned each a score where the fastest card gets 100 and all others are graded relative to it. These numbers are based on the geometric mean fps from our Far Cry 5, Forza Motorsport 7, and Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation benchmarks, giving us a good mix of game genres and APIs. 


Score
GPU
Base/Boost
Memory
Power
Buy
Nvidia Titan Xp
100
GP102
1405/1480 MHz12GB GDDR5X
250W
$1200Nvidia
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
99.9
GP102
1480/1582 MHz11GB GDDR5X
250W
$749Newegg
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080
88.8
GP104
1607/1733 MHz8GB GDDR5X180W $701Newegg
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64
88.6
Vega 10
1274/1546 MHz8GB HBM2295W $679Newegg
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 Ti
82.6
GP104
1607/1683 MHz8GB GDDR5
180W
$479Newegg
AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
79.8
Vega 10
1156/1471 MHz8GB HBM2
210W
$642Newegg
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070
73.2
GP104
1506/1683 MHz8GB GDDR5
150W
$459Newegg
AMD Radeon RX 580 8GB
61.2
Polaris 10
1257/1340 MHz8GB GDDR5
185W
$495Newegg
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
56.4
GP106
1506/1708 MHz6GB GDDR5
120W
$314Newegg
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 3GB
45.3
GP106
1506/1708 MHz3GB GDDR5
120W
$229Newegg
AMD Radeon RX 570
51.5
Polaris 10
1168/1244 MHz4GB GDDR5
150W
$289Newegg
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
33.6
GP107
1290/1392 MHz4GB GDDR5
75W
$189Newegg
AMD Radeon RX 560
30.1
Polaris 11
1175/1275 MHz4GB GDDR5
80W
$149Newegg
Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050
26.1
GP107
1354/1455 MHz2GB GDDR5
75W
$139Newegg
AMD Radeon RX 550
18.7
Polaris 12
1100/1183 MHz4GB GDDR5
50W
$119Newegg
Nvidia GeForce GT 1030
11.2
GP108
1228/1468 MHz2GB GDDR5
30W
$92Newegg

Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 1080 Ti and Titan Xp are the logical choices for 4K gaming, even if some titles require dialed-back detail settings for fluid gameplay.

AMD’s Radeon RX Vega 64 and Nvidia’s GeForce GTX 1080 occupy a lower performance tier. They’re ideal for running at 2560x1440 using the highest quality presets. And as you can see, they score similarly in our index.

The GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, Radeon RX Vega 56, and GeForce GTX 1070 don’t land far from each other, either. All three cards are capable of great frame rates at 2560x1440, and they’re all good options for driving a VR head-mounted display.

There’s a larger group of Radeon RX 580, GeForce GTX 1060 6GB, GeForce GTX 1060 3GB, and Radeon RX 570 boards that excel at 1920x1080. They can even be made serviceable at 2560x1440 if you dial down your detail settings far enough. But beware: insufficient GDDR5 memory on cards like the 3GB GeForce GTX 1060 may cause severe performance issues at higher resolutions. That model is usually faster than Radeon RX 570. However, because we benchmark Forza at 2560x1440 using High settings, its 3GB just aren’t enough, skewing the score lower.

The same thing happens in the next category, where GeForce GTX 1050 appears much slower than Radeon RX 560 due to the former’s 2GB of memory, hurting it in our Forza Motorsports 7 benchmark. Gaming at 1920x1080 or 1280x720 is far more realistic with these cards.

Finally, Radeon RX 550 and GeForce GT 1030 close out this generation’s hierarchy with performance well-suited to popular eSports titles.

Test System & Configuration

Test System
Processor
Intel Core i7-7700K
Motherboard
MSI Z270 Gaming Pro Carbon
Memory
32GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 (4x 8GB)
Storage
500GB Crucial MX200 SSD
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro v.1803
Games
Far Cry 5v.1.06, Fullscreen, 1920x1080, High Graphics Quality, High Texture Filtering, High Shadows, High Geometry & Vegetation, High Environment, High Water, High Terrain, High Volumetric Fog, TAA Anti-Aliasing, Motion Blur On
Ashes of the Singularity: Escalationv.2.7532453, High Quality Profile, 2560x1440, Fullscreen, DirectX 12
Forza Motorsport 7v.1.126.9433.2, Ultra Dynamic Render Quality, 2560x1440, Custom Dynamic Optimization, Fullscreen, Unlocked Performance Target, 100% Resolution Scale, 16x Anisotropic Filtering, 2x MSAA Quality, Car Headlights In Rain Off, and all other options set to High

Legacy GPU Hierarchy

Tom's Hardware readers accustomed to referencing our legacy desktop GPU hierarchy with historical comparisons dating back to the 1990s will find them below Here we group cards into performance tiers, pairing disparate generations where overlap occurs.

Nvidia GeForceAMD Radeon
Titan Xp ($1,200 On Nvidia)
Titan X (Pascal) ($1,649.99 On Amazon)
GTX 1080 Ti ($699 On Amazon)
GTX 1080 ($559.89 On Amazon)



RX Vega 64 ($649.99 On Best Buy)
GTX Titan X (Maxwell)
GTX 1070 Ti ($469.99 On -)
GTX 1070 ($459.89 On Amazon)
980 Ti ($537.83 On Amazon)
R9 295X2
RX Vega 56 ($469.99 On Newegg)
R9 Fury X
GTX Titan Black
GTX 980 ($539.99 On Amazon)
GTX 690
R9 Fury
R9 Fury Nano
GTX Titan
GTX 1060 ($249.99 On Newegg)
GTX 970
GTX 780 Ti
GTX 780
RX 580 ($296.89 On Amazon)
RX 570 ($229.89 On Amazon)
RX 480 ($194.97 On Amazon)
RX 470 ($204.00 On Amazon)
R9 390X ($429.99 On Amazon)
R9 390 ($319.99 On Newegg)
R9 290X
R9 290
HD 7990
GTX 770
GTX 680
GTX 590
R9 380X
R9 380 ($229.99 On Amazon)
R9 280X
HD 7970 GHz Edition
HD 6990
GTX 1050 Ti ($157.99 On Amazon)
GTX 960 ($199.99 On Amazon)
GTX 670
GTX 580
R9 285
R9 280
HD 7950
HD 7870 LE (XT)
HD 5970
GTX 1050 ($119.99 On Amazon)
GTX 950
GTX 760
GTX 660 Ti
RX 560 ($129.99 On Amazon)
RX 460
R7 370
R9 270X
R9 270
HD 7870
GTX 660
GTX 570
GTX 480
GTX 295
R7 265
HD 7850
HD 6970
HD 4870 X2
GTX 750 Ti
GTX 650 Ti Boost
GTX 560 Ti (448 Core)
GTX 560 Ti
GTX 470
R7 260X
HD 6950
HD 5870
HD 4850 X2
GTX 750
GTX 650 Ti
GTX 560
HD 7790
HD 6870
HD 5850
GT 1030 ( On -)
GTX 465
GTX 460 (256-bit)
GTX 285
9800 GX2
RX 550 ($79.99 On Amazon)
R7 360
R7 260
HD 7770
HD 6850
GT 740 GDDR5
GT 650
GTX 560 SE
GTX 550 Ti
GTX 460 SE
GTX 460 (192-bit)
GTX 280
GTX 275
GTX 260
R7 250E
R7 250 (GDDR5)
HD 7750 (GDDR5)
HD 6790
HD 6770
HD 5830
HD 5770
HD 4890
HD 4870
GTS 450
GTS 250
9800 GTX+
9800 GTX
8800 Ultra
R7 250 (DDR3)
HD 7750 (DDR3)
HD 6750
HD 5750
HD 4850
HD 3870 X2
GT 730 (64-bit, GDDR5)
GT 545 (GDDR5)
8800 GTS (512MB)
8800 GTX
HD 4770
GT 740 DDR3
GT 640 (DDR3)
GT 545 (DDR3)
9800 GT
8800 GT (512MB)
HD 7730 (GDDR5)
HD 6670 (GDDR5)
HD 5670
HD 4830
GT 240 (GDDR5)
9600 GT
8800 GTS (640MB)
HD 6570 (GDDR5)
HD 5570 (GDDR5)
HD 3870
HD 2900 XT
GT 240 (DDR3)
9600 GSO
8800 GS
R7 240
HD 7730 (DDR3)
HD 6670 (DDR3)
HD 6570 (DDR3)
HD 5570 (DDR3)
HD 4670
HD 3850 (512MB)
GT 730 (128-bit, GDDR5)
GT 630 (GDDR5)
GT 440 (GDDR5)
8800 GTS (320MB)
8800 GT (256MB)
HD 5550 (GDDR5)
HD 3850 (256MB)
HD 2900 Pro
GT 730 (128-bit, DDR3)
GT 630 (DDR3)
GT 440 (DDR3)
7950 GX2
HD 7660D (integrated)
HD 5550 (DDR3)
HD 4650 (DDR3)
X1950 XTX
GT 530
GT 430
7900 GTX
7900 GTO
7800 GTX 512
X1900 XTX
X1950 XT
X1900 XT
GT 220 (DDR3)
7950 G
7900 GT
7800 GTX
HD 7560D (integrated)
HD 5550 (DDR2)
HD 2900 GT
X1950 Pro
X1900 GT
X1900 AIW
X1800 XT
GT 220 (DDR2)
9500 GT (GDDR3)
8600 GTS
7900 GS
7800 GT
HD 7540D (integrated)
HD 6550D (integrated)
HD 6620G (integrated)
R5 230
HD 6450
HD 4650 (DDR2)
X1950 GT
X1800 XL
9500 GT (DDR2)
8600 GT (GDDR3)
8600 GS
7800 GS
7600 GT
6800 Ultra
7480D (integrated)
6530D (integrated)
6520G (integrated)
HD 3670
HD 3650 (DDR3)
HD 2600 XT
X1800 GTO
X1650 XT
X850 XT PE
X800 XT PE
X850 XT
X800 XT
GT 520
8600 GT (DDR2)
6800 GS (PCIe)
6800 GT
6480G (integrated)
6410D (integrated)
HD 3650 (DDR2)
HD 2600 Pro
X800 GTO2/GTO16
X800 XL
6800 GS (AGP)
6380G (integrated)
6370D (integrated)
X1650 GT
X850 Pro
X800 Pro
X800 GTO (256MB)
8600M GS
7600 GS
7300 GT (GDDR3)
6800
X1650 Pro
X1600 XT
X800 GTO (128MB)
X800
9400 GT
8500 GT
7300 GT (DDR2)
6800 XT
6800LE
6600 GT
HD 6320 (integrated)
HD 6310 (integrated)
HD 5450
HD 4550
HD 4350
HD 2400 XT
X1600 Pro
X1300 XT
X800 SE
X800 GT
X700 Pro
9800 XT
9400 (integrated)
9300 (integrated)
6600 (128-bit)
FX 5950 Ultra
FX 5900 Ultra
FX 5900
HD 6290 (integrated)
HD 6250 (integrated)
HD 4290 (integrated)
HD 4250 (integrated)
HD 4200 (integrated)
HD 3300 (integrated)
HD 3200 (integrated)
HD 2400 Pro
X1550
X1300 Pro
X700
9800 Pro
9800
9700 Pro
9700
FX 5900 XT
FX 5800 Ultra
X1050 (128-bit)
X600 XT
9800 Pro (128-bit)
9600 XT
9500 Pro
G 310
G 210
8400 G
8300
6200
FX 5700 Ultra
4 Ti 4800
4 Ti 4600
Xpress 1250 (integrated)
HD 2300
X600 Pro
9800 LE
9600 Pro
9300M GS
9300M G
8400M GS
7300 GS
FX 5700, 6600 (64-bit)
FX 5600 Ultra
4 Ti4800 SE
4 Ti4400
4 Ti4200
X1050 (64-bit)
X300
9600
9550
9500
8300 (integrated)
8200 (integrated)
7300 LE
7200 GS
6600 LE
6200 TC
FX 5700 LE
FX 5600
FX 5200 Ultra
3 Ti500
X1150
X300 SE
9600 LE
9100
8500
FX 5500
FX 5200 (128-bit)
3 Ti200
3
9250
9200
9000
FX 7050 (integrated)
FX 7025 (integrated)
FX 6150 (integrated)
FX 6100 (integrated)
FX 5200 (64-bit)
Xpress 1150 (integrated)
Xpress 1000 (integrated)
Xpress 200M (integrated)
9200 SE
2 Ti 200
2 Ti
2 Ultra
4 MX 440
2 GTS
7500
2 MX 400
4 MX 420
2 MX 200
256
7200
7000
DDR
LE
SDR
Nvidia TNTRage 128

MORE: Best Graphics

MORE: AMD Radeon RX 480 Roundup

MORE: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060 Roundup

MORE: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 Roundup

MORE: Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Roundup

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject
48 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • Lutfij
    The chart looks better, represented this way!
    :)
  • jaber2
    Lame
  • bit_user
    Thanks for the update!

    Quote:
    we've assigned each a score where the fastest card gets 100 and all others are graded relative to it. These numbers are based on the geometric mean fps from our Far Cry 5, Forza Motorsport 7, and Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation benchmarks, giving us a good mix of game genres and APIs.


    I like this scoring methodology, except...
    1. It's not specified, but I feel that the scores used should be ones at some plausible preset and AA for a given game.
    2. Separate scores (and columns) should be provided for 1920x1080, 2560x1440, and 3840x2160.

    Otherwise, very nice.
  • stdragon
    That 1070 Ti is right on the sweet-spot of performance per dollar.
  • Martell1977
    Regardless of the reason, the 570 outscored the 1060 3gb in the average and should be ranked as such. Having it with a lower score, yet above the 570 is disingenuous. If the scoring system is to be creditable, then they need to be listed as they performed. Lack of memory is not an excuse, it's a limitation of the card as designed.
  • photonboy
    Those three games do NOT represent a typical gamers experience. They are newer games and thus favor AMD more. Hey, I'm not badmouthing AMD just that most gamers would have more OLDER games in the mix.

    Practically too, VEGA64 with a weaker cooler can throttle down quite a bit.

    (I am rooting for AMD to come out with a more power efficient card even if it's not much more powerful than VEGA64... at some point AMD and NVidia should switch to multi-die GPU's which will be interesting)
  • jimmysmitty
    Anonymous said:
    Those three games do NOT represent a typical gamers experience. They are newer games and thus favor AMD more. Hey, I'm not badmouthing AMD just that most gamers would have more OLDER games in the mix.

    Practically too, VEGA64 with a weaker cooler can throttle down quite a bit.

    (I am rooting for AMD to come out with a more power efficient card even if it's not much more powerful than VEGA64... at some point AMD and NVidia should switch to multi-die GPU's which will be interesting)


    I have seen little to nothing for AMD. Lots of secrecy with their next GPU. One thing for sure though is that if they do not get a handle on the crypto-mining inflation there is no way they will conquer the gaming market. Not with double the price of a GTX 1080 and a much (nearly double) higher TDP.

    Short of the die hard AMD fans and crypto-miners no one would pay $1200 for a GPU when you can get the 1080 Ti for $850.

    And thanks to that price inflation nVidia isn't going to drop prices on theirs anytime soon except when they launch their new top end GPUs.
  • cryoburner
    This new format is a nice way to show roughly how these current-generation cards compare. I definitely want to see the legacy chart stay too though, as it helps provide a rough estimation of how old cards compare to newer ones.

    The testing methodology for the new chart doesn't really seem up to par though. Basing numbers on performance in just 3 games is not going to provide particularly accurate results, especially when 2 of the 3 are running at resolutions that some of the cards aren't even designed to handle. If the choice of resolution is going to reposition cards in the chart, why not provide separate results for different resolutions? The vast majority of people are still gaming at resolutions of 1080p or below, so that should be the most relevant resolution to test. If someone is gaming at 1440p or higher with a higher-end card, then they are probably also more likely to read reviews, and less likely to need a chart like this.

    I must say that I prefer the performance summary charts included in TechPowerUp's reviews, as they not only provide separate charts for 1080p, 1440p and 2160p, but they also base the results on the combined performance of the 20+ games in their test suite, preventing anomalous results in any one title from throwing off the average too much. Plus, they make the actual frame rate results for each game available in separate charts, so one can get an idea of whether a certain difference in performance might even be relevant at a given refresh rate, and in the games they actually play. Tom's of course provides much more detailed results for each game tested in their reviews, but that doesn't apply in a summary like this. I would at the very least like to see more games being used to calculate these results.
  • cangelini
  • cangelini
    Anonymous said:
    This new format is a nice way to show roughly how these current-generation cards compare. I definitely want to see the legacy chart stay too though, as it helps provide a rough estimation of how old cards compare to newer ones.

    The testing methodology for the new chart doesn't really seem up to par though. Basing numbers on performance in just 3 games is not going to provide particularly accurate results, especially when 2 of the 3 are running at resolutions that some of the cards aren't even designed to handle. If the choice of resolution is going to reposition cards in the chart, why not provide separate results for different resolutions? The vast majority of people are still gaming at resolutions of 1080p or below, so that should be the most relevant resolution to test. If someone is gaming at 1440p or higher with a higher-end card, then they are probably also more likely to read reviews, and less likely to need a chart like this.

    I must say that I prefer the performance summary charts included in TechPowerUp's reviews, as they not only provide separate charts for 1080p, 1440p and 2160p, but they also base the results on the combined performance of the 20+ games in their test suite, preventing anomalous results in any one title from throwing off the average too much. Plus, they make the actual frame rate results for each game available in separate charts, so one can get an idea of whether a certain difference in performance might even be relevant at a given refresh rate, and in the games they actually play. Tom's of course provides much more detailed results for each game tested in their reviews, but that doesn't apply in a summary like this. I would at the very least like to see more games being used to calculate these results.


    I'll bring up the idea of adding resolutions and games. I think the purpose here was to add a better-quantified alternative to the old legacy chart (which is still included underneath), but to start backing some of the current-gen rankings with data. I am at least satisfied that the three genres/chosen APIs do match our review guidance. However, the suggestions are appreciated and, again, I'll bring them up in our next meeting to see if I can get the green light for more data.
  • bit_user
  • chalabam
    Great. Tomshardware GPU articles had turned abstract to me for not having the GPU hierarchy.

    I was unable to compare my card with the new ones.

    Tom's hierarchy lists and techreport x-y price performance charts are some of the most valuable info on hardware reviews.
  • bobba84
    AMD=poo
  • Solandri
    This really needs to be turned into a price/performance plot. So you can easily see where the sweet spot is (the elbow in the curve).

    Anonymous said:
    Those three games do NOT represent a typical gamers experience. They are newer games and thus favor AMD more. Hey, I'm not badmouthing AMD just that most gamers would have more OLDER games in the mix.

    I wouldn't really call that favoring AMD. What's happened is that game developers are now spending as much time optimizing for AMD as they are for Nvidia. Older games were optimized for Nvidia but not for AMD. So the FPS in current games is a more of a level playing field between the capabilities of cards from the two manufacturers. i.e. Older games favored Nvidia. Current games don't favor either.

    That said, to address your point, this really needs to be turned into a dynamic chart (and graph I mentioned above), where the user can select which game they want to use for the comparison. The website should just send a bunch of FPS data to the browser, and a script on the browser can dynamically generate the chart based on which game the user selects.
  • zahnster67
    Would love to see where modern integrated graphics fall on this list...Intel 8809G, AMD 2400G, 2700U etc.
  • hidaamoro
    No Titan V?
  • Goku Kakkarot
    so that means rx560 and 460 better than r9270x? And even R7 370? WTH?
  • Lucky_SLS
    Would very much like to see the Vega 11 and Vega 8 along with the Vega units in the hades nuc in the list above.
  • geofelt
    Love the new list.
    Good to add the performance difference between GTX1060 3gb and 6gb.
    Perhaps you could add a column for integrated graphics.
    Many will want to know just where HD630 fits