Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v1.0: technical specifications plus authentic consumer ratings, with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v1.0

AMD Radeon HD 6950 Review | 118 Data compared

Avg. price:~£35VRAM:1 GBMemory bus width:256 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):200 W

AMD Radeon HD 6950 Review: Compare 118 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

4.3/10

Overall score

Score
4.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the graphics card's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best graphics cards on the market.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components

90%

4.3

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▼Worse than 94% of graphics cards
6.0

Value for money

Value for money
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components

70%

4.3

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 91%
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components

44%

3.1

Performance

24%

3.0

Memory

12%

7.3

Power & Cooling

11%

5.7

Platform & Features

5%

7.9

Design

4%

7.0

Connectivity & Media

▼Worse than 92%
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image
Best prices
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading...
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon HD 6950

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components:

44%

3.1

Performance

24%

3.0

Memory

12%

7.3

Power & Cooling

11%

5.7

Platform & Features

5%

7.9

Design

4%

7.0

Connectivity & Media

4.3
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you prefer a graphics card that has already been chosen and reviewed by many other users.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Popularity:
AMD Radeon HD 6950 has a popularity score of 1 point, which is lower than that of 57.7% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components:

70%

4.3

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.0
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
?
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.2% of graphics cards and equal to 16.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
2,593 points
This graphics card scores 2,593 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 97.5% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
954 points
This graphics card scores 954 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 97.8% of graphics cards.
Floating-point performance
2.25 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 2.25 TFLOPS floating-point performance, which is lower than that of 94.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
1 GB
This graphics card has 1 GB of VRAM, which is less than 98.3% of graphics cards and equal to 1.7% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
GDDR version
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.9% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
256 bit
This graphics card uses a 256 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 49.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 35.9% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
160 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 160 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 91.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
2.1
This graphics card supports PCIe 2.1, which is older than on 98.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.6% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 23.4% of graphics cards and equal to 76.6% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
11.2
This graphics card supports DirectX 11.2, which is older than on 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.7% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
?
OpenGL version
4.4
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.4, which is older than on 98.9% of graphics cards and equal to 0.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
6
This graphics card supports up to 6 displays, which is more than 98.7% of graphics cards and equal to 1.3% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
2560x1600
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 2560x1600, which is lower than that of 97.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
2
This graphics card offers 2 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 79.1% of graphics cards and equal to 9.5% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65% of graphics cards and equal to 22.7% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
200 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 200 W, which is lower than that of 51.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.9% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
200 W
This graphics card draws 200 W under peak load, which is lower than 54% of graphics cards and equal to 3.6% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
500 W
This graphics card recommends a 500 W PSU, which is lower than that of 75.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.9% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
225 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W, which is lower than that of 49.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
200 W
Show more
Size
286x 126x 42 mm
Length
286 mm
This graphics card is 286 mm long, which is longer than 50.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Height
126 mm
This graphics card is 126 mm tall, which is taller than 50.8% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.7% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 53.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 42.5% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,050 g
This graphics card weighs 1,050 g, which is heavier than 51.3% of graphics cards and equal in weight to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more

AMD Radeon HD 6950 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryPlatform & FeaturesConnectivity & MediaPower & CoolingDesign
  • 2 more displays supported
    This graphics card supports more displays than the average graphics card (6 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    6 vs 4
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 15.14x cheaper
    AMD Radeon HD 6950 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£35 vs £530).
    £35 vs £530
  • Better FP64 ratio
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:4 vs 1:64).
    1:4 vs 1:64
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 15.14x cheaper
    AMD Radeon HD 6950 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£35 vs £530).
    £35 vs £530
  • Better FP64 ratio
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:4 vs 1:64).
    1:4 vs 1:64
  • 4 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (4 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    4 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 2 more displays supported
    This graphics card supports more displays than the average graphics card (6 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    6 vs 4
  • 2 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    2 vs 0
  • 23.1% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (500 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    500 W vs 650 W
  • 7 °C lower idle temperature
    This graphics card has a lower idle temperature than the average graphics card (30 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    30 °C vs 37 °C
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 11 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (1 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    1 GB vs 12 GB
  • 8x larger process node
    This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (40 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
    40 nm vs 5 nm
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • 58.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (800 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    800 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 18 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (22 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    22 vs 40
  • 81.5% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (70.4 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 381.2 GTexel/s.
    70.4 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s
  • 20% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon HD 6950 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6 vs 7.2).
    6 vs 7.2
  • 4.22x less popular
    AMD Radeon HD 6950 is less popular than the average graphics card (1 vs 4.2).
    1 vs 4.22
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 58.3% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (800 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    800 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 18 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (22 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    22 vs 40
  • 81.5% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (70.4 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 381.2 GTexel/s.
    70.4 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s
  • 84.3% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (25.6 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 163.2 GPixel/s.
    25.6 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s
  • 96 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (88 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    88 vs 184
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 90% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (2.3 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS.
    2.25 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS
  • 88.6% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (2593 points vs 22653 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22653 points.
    2,593 points vs 22,653 points
  • 92.1% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (954 points vs 12074 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12074 points.
    954 points vs 12,074 points
  • 90.2% lower compute throughput
    This graphics card has a lower compute throughput than the average graphics card (2.3 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has compute throughput of 22.98 TFLOPS.
    2.25 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS
  • 2,944 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,408 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,408 vs 4,352
  • 11 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (1 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    1 GB vs 12 GB
  • 73.7% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (5000 MHz vs 19000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19000 MHz.
    5,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64.3% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (160 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    160 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 28.6% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1250 MHz vs 1750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1750 MHz.
    1,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 93.8% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (8 vs 128). The average graphics card has 128 L1 cache.
    8 vs 128
  • 8x larger process node
    This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (40 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
    40 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 4).
    2.1 vs 4.0
  • No FSR support
    This graphics card does not support FSR, the average graphics card does.
  • 13 older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2010 vs 2023).
    December 2010
    2,010 vs 2,023
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • Worse SAM support
    This graphics card offers worse SAM support than the average graphics card (no vs yes).
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (11.2 vs 12 Ultimate).
    11.2 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 3).
    1.2 vs 3.0
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5 vs 6.8).
    5.0 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • Older OpenGL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenGL version than the average graphics card (4.4 vs 4.6).
    4.4 vs 4.6
  • 88.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (2640 million vs 22900 million). The average graphics card has 22900 million transistors.
    2,640 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1.0 vs 3.1
  • 31.9% larger GPU die
    This graphics card has a higher GPU die size than the average graphics card (389 mm² vs 295 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 295 mm².
    389 mm² vs 295 mm²
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • 1 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (2 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    2 vs 3
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1).
    1.4a vs 2.1
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • Narrower encode codec support
    This graphics card supports narrower hardware encode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Narrower decode codec support
    This graphics card supports narrower hardware decode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264/MPEG-2/VC-1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1).
    H.264/MPEG-2/VC-1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (2560x1600 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    2560x1600 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • 37 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (37 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    37 dB vs 0 dB
  • 10 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (77 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    77 °C vs 67 °C
  • 5.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (41 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    41 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 66.7% higher idle power draw
    This graphics card has a higher idle power draw than the average graphics card (20 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    20 W vs 12 W
  • 5 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (100 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    100 °C vs 95 °C
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

U
uk.pcmag.com
20/05/2011
Summary of the review
T
techspot.com
27/12/2010
Summary of the review
B
bit-tech.net
16/12/2010
Summary of the review
G
guru3d.com
15/12/2010
Summary of the review
G
guru3d.com
14/12/2010
Summary of the review
T
techpowerup.com
29/03/2011
Summary of the review
O
overclockers.com
12/01/2011
Summary of the review
T
techspot.com
27/12/2010
Summary of the review
T
tomshardware.com
14/12/2010
Summary of the review
T
techpowerup.com
14/12/2010
Summary of the review
T
techpowerup.com
21/01/2011
Summary of the review
I
it.anandtech.com
15/12/2010
Summary of the review
G
guru3d.com
14/12/2010
Summary of the review
H
hardwareluxx.de
29/07/2011
Summary of the review
H
hardwareluxx.de
18/07/2011
Summary of the review
H
hardwareluxx.de
17/01/2011
Summary of the review
I
igorslab.de
12/02/2022
Summary of the review
H
hardware.fr
21/01/2009
Summary of the review

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Radeon HD 6950

  • Excellent price-to-performance ratio at launch
  • Many models feature a dual BIOS switch for safety during modding
  • Ability to unlock extra shaders via BIOS flash to match HD 6970 performance
  • Strong performance in DX11 titles and multi-monitor Eyefinity setups
  • 2GB GDDR5 standard on many models provides better longevity for high resolutions
  • Manageable physical size for most mid-to-large cases

What we don't like about AMD Radeon HD 6950

  • High power consumption, especially under heavy load or during Blu-ray playback
  • Stock blower-style fans can be noisy and run hot
  • Lacks support for proprietary NVIDIA features like PhysX and CUDA
  • Driver support has officially ended, limiting compatibility with modern games
  • 1GB variants may struggle with minimum frame rates in memory-intensive titles
  • Significant heat output can turn a PC into a 'space heater' in CrossFire setups

Verdict

The AMD Radeon HD 6950, released in 2010 on the 40nm 'Cayman' architecture, features 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, with a core clock speed of 800 MHz and a 256-bit memory interface. It typically comes equipped with 2GB (or sometimes 1GB) of GDDR5 VRAM running at an effective 5.0 Gbps, providing 160 GB/s of bandwidth. Main characteristics include support for DirectX 11, AMD Eyefinity for multi-monitor setups, and a dual-BIOS switch that often allowed users to 'unlock' the card into a more powerful HD 6970. Key pros are its strong performance-to-price ratio at launch, high overclocking potential, and efficient cooling via its vapor chamber design. However, cons include a high maximum power draw of 200W, significant noise under heavy load, and a lack of modern driver support since 2016.

Compare AMD Radeon HD 6950 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon HD 6950 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found