GPU Benchmarks and Hierarchy: Graphics Cards Ranked

Our hierarchy of GPU benchmark scores ranks all the current and previous generation graphics cards in terms of performance, using a suite of gaming tests. Whether it's playing games or doing high-end creative work like 4K video editing, your graphics card typically plays the biggest role in determining performance with even the best gaming CPUs taking second place. Note that the table below is based solely on the scores from performance-based GPU benchmarks. We have a separate article that lists the best graphics cards, based on all factors, including price, graphics card power consumption and overall efficiency. But, what if, for example, you're shopping around and want to know whether an AMD RX 5600 XT is faster than an Nvidia GTX 1660 Super and, if so, by how much? To help you decide which graphics card you need, we've created the GPU hierarchy table below, which ranks all the current and recent chips from fastest to slowest. We've assigned each a score based on our current test suite of nine gaming-based GPU benchmarks, running at 'medium' and 'ultra' settings with resolutions of 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. For comparison purposes, the fastest card, based on combination of all nine GPU benchmarks, gets normalized to 100 percent, and all others are graded relative to it.

It's important to note that Nvidia's new GPUs (GeForce RTX 3090, and GeForce RTX 3080, and GeForce RTX 3070) are all coming in the next month or so, but we don't have them yet so they're not on the charts. Based on Nvidia's claims, all three of those will score higher on GPU benchmarks than the RTX 2080 Ti, thanks to improvements in the Ampere architecture. AMD's Big Navi is also expected soon, with the latest rumors indicating an October release date. Intel's Xe HPG discrete GPU currently only has a 2021 tentative launch date.

A good graphics card will let you play recent games at smooth frame rates, returning impressive GPU benchmark scores. Get one of the top cards and you can enjoy those games at very high resolutions or frame rates, with the special effects turned all the way up. Drop down to the middle and lower portions of the list and you'll need to start dialing down the settings to get acceptable performance in regular game play and GPU benchmarks. And integrated graphics ... well, we tested that as well, and the results aren't pretty. (See the very bottom of the list for those entries.)

You can see the full suite of charts for testing at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K in our Best Graphics Cards article. Here, we're focused on the 'executive summary' and have omitted individual game charts as well as a few GPUs that don't fully qualify—specifically, the integrated graphics solutions as those are only tested at 720p in most cases. We've also left off the Titan Xp and older Titan X (Maxwell), giving us a round 40 GPUs in the charts, color coded for your viewing pleasure.

Test System for GPU Benchmarks

• Intel Core i9-9900K
• Corsair H150i Pro RGB
• MSI MEG Z390 Ace
• Corsair 32GB DDR4-3200 (2x 16GB)
• XPG SX8200 Pro 2TB
• Windows 10 Pro (1909)

Our GPU benchmark results are based on the geometric mean frames per second (fps) of our testing of Borderlands 3, The Division 2, Far Cry 5, Final Fantasy XIV, Forza Horizon 4, Metro Exodus, Red Dead Redemption 2, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and Strange Brigade. If you want to do your own GPU benchmarking, see our complete list of the best GPU tests, which includes a lot more games and synthetic tests as well.

That's nine games, six settings and over 40 cards from the current and previous generations. We have a solid mix of game genres and APIs, plus AMD and Nvidia promoted titles, making this the definitive GPU hierarchy for gaming performance. The new mix of games and settings make for much larger differences between some of the GPUs, where previously the CPU and lower settings made things look much closer.

Note that while some of the games in our GPU benchmark suite support DirectX Raytracing (DXR) and Nvidia's RTX 20-series GPUs, we have not tested with DXR enabled. That's because none of AMD's current cards can run DXR, and while Nvidia does support DXR on certain GTX models, ray tracing performance on Pascal cards isn't great. For now, only Nvidia RTX GPUs are worth using for ray tracing games; we may begin with universal ray tracing performance comparisons once Nvidia Ampere and AMD Big Navi arrive later this year ... maybe.

GPU Benchmarks: Which Cards Ranked Highest?

Topping the charts is the Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti. Technically the Titan RTX is about 3% faster overall, for more than twice the price. It might be worth shelling out for the Titan if you're doing AI research and software development and need 24 GB of VRAM, but for gaming, the sage advice is to always skip the Titan cards.

The 2080 Ti is your best option if you're after 4K high to ultra quality gaming at 60 fps, or even higher framerates on a 1440p monitor. Of course, the 2080 Ti also came out in 2018 and is due to be replaced by something faster this year. That something faster is RTX 3080 Ti / Ampere, though when it will arrive and how much it will cost are unknown. AMD's Big Navi will also look to move team red higher up the charts.

Ignoring the Titan cards, the next three positions on the charts are also from Nvidia: RTX 2080 Super, RTX 2080, and RTX 2070 Super. The drop from 2080 Ti to 2080 Super is 10%, while the gap between the next three RTX cards is a modest 3-5% step down in performance. AMD doesn't even rank on the charts until the Radeon VII in fifth (sans Titans), basically tied with the 1080 Ti and coming in just a few percent ahead of the RX 5700 XT. The newer RDNA architecture in the RX 5700 XT makes it the far better choice, at about two-thirds the price, unless you really need 16GB of HBM2.

Following close behind the 5700 XT are the RTX 2070, RX 5700, RTX 2060 Super, RX Vega 64, RX 5600 XT, and GTX 1080. We're using a 14 Gbps GDDR6 model of the 5600 XT, though. Rounding out the top half of the hierarchy are the RTX 2060, RX Vega 56, and GTX 1070 Ti.

If you want ray tracing support so you can play games like Minecraft RTX, obviously the RTX cards are the only option right now, and they're plenty fast in non-ray tracing games. All of the above cards are generally capable of 1440p 60 fps gaming at high to ultra settings, with more ultra settings within reach the further up the charts you go. Tinker a bit and drop some settings to medium and 1440p at 60 fps is also within reach of other cards. These cards are also good for extreme 240 fps performance at 1080p in esports games, if you have a 240 Hz display, and soon 360 Hz monitors will hit the market. The cards in the top half of our GPU hierarchy are also great options if you're looking to drive a VR headset.

Even though we're now at GPUs that are half the performance of the RTX 2080 Ti, the midrange and budget GPUs are still plenty capable of playing games. The GTX 1660 Ti and GTX 1660 Super effectively match the older GTX 1070, and land just ahead of the now 'ancient' GTX 980 Ti from 2015, which squeaks ahead of the GTX 1660. If you shelled out $650 five years ago for the then-fastest GPU, it's now matched by $200 cards. Such is the price of progress.

Once we hit the RX 590, RX 5500 XT 8GB and RX 580 8GB, it's best to leave thoughts of 1440p gaming behind, but 1080p and 60 fps or more at high to ultra settings is still possible in most games. Only the most demanding (Borderlands 3, The Division 2 and Metro Exodus) may need to drop a few settings even further.

There are a couple interesting points to note here. First, older 4GB cards like the R9 Fury X and GTX 980, along with newer cards like the GTX 1650 Super and RX 5500 XT 4GB, all perform reasonably well and can still match or even beat Nvidia's GTX 1060 6GB. If you're willing to drop texture and shadow resolution a notch, 4GB cards are still viable at 1080p, though that will become less true as future games continue to push VRAM use. Doom Eternal and Red Dead Redemption 2 for example prevent you from exceeding your VRAM, meaning some settings are effectively locked out (or may cause crashes).

The second item to consider: These $150-$250 cards are generally equal or superior to the current generation console GPUs (PS4 Pro and Xbox One X). Drop your settings to medium/high, run at 1440p with resolution scaling up to 4K, and you too can get the 30-60 fps console gaming experience on your PC! If you think current consoles "can do 4K" but only extremely expensive PC hardware will suffice, it's mostly a subjective view of what makes for adequate frame rates and image quality.

Wrapping up the charts, the bottom third is home of the true budget GPUs like the RX 570 4GB and GTX 1650, including performance data from the updated GTX 1650 GDDR6 models. These cards give up a lot of performance in order to keep pricing down. RX 570 cards are still hanging around in the $120-$130 range, compared to GTX 1650 selling for $140-$160, which overlaps with GDDR6 models as well as the 1650 Super.

Unless you can find the 1650 on sale, getting the 1650 Super for the same price is recommended as it's 20% faster than the 1650 GDDR6 and over 30% faster than the vanilla 1650. AMD's RX 570 power use is much higher than the competing Nvidia GPUs, and we wouldn't recommend buying such a card now (unless you can find it for $100 or less). However, performance is still good and it's basically tied with the 1650 Super.

Going below the GTX 1650 isn't recommended, unless you're more interested in a card for home theater PC (HTPC) use. Yes, the GTX 1050 and RX 560 can still play nearly any game at more than 30 fps at 1080p medium, but that's about it. The RX 550 and GT 1030 meanwhile exist mostly for OEMs that simply wanted any dedicated graphics card for marketing purposes, or for specialized half-height PC builds. They can do 60 fps in popular eports games like League of Legends or Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, but then even Intel's latest integrated graphics solutions can handle those games in a pinch.

If you're looking at an RX 550 or GT 1030, you might be better off with AMD's integrated graphics on its Ryzen APUs (assuming you're purchasing other components). The Vega 11 Graphics in the 3400G is right behind the GT 1030—at least when equipped with dual-channel DDR4-3200 system memory; DDR4-2400 RAM will reduce performance by about 15-20%. The Vega 8 Graphics found in the Ryzen 3 3200G is also fine in a pinch, coming in about 10% behind Vega 11. Mostly, you'd want to stick with 720p gaming at minimum to medium quality.

What about Intel? For desktop processors, the Intel UHD Graphics 630 has been the 'top' solution since Kaby Lake in 2017. It's about one third as fast as AMD's Vega 11, and only manages to break 30 fps in three of the nine games we tested. Ice Lake's Gen11 graphics is theoretically faster but only found in laptops, which end up being TDP constrained. We'll have to see what Xe Graphics brings to the table later this year.

Also worth noting is that the scoring assigned to each GPU uses all six test resolutions and settings (except on integrated graphics, because, come on). If you want to check performance at just 1080p medium, or one of the other options, you can see the ranking order for the main 40 GPUs in the following charts.

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.

For even more information, check out our Graphics Card Buyer's Guide.

MORE: Best Graphics Cards for Gaming

MORE: Graphics Card Power Consumption Tested

MORE: How to Stress-Test Graphics Cards (Like We Do)

Want to comment on this story? Let us know what you think in the Tom's Hardware Forums.