AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT belong to different eras of GPU design, separated by over six years of architectural evolution. The GTX 950, based on Maxwell 2.0, was a mainstream entry in the GeForce 900 generation, while the RX 6500 XT is a RDNA 2.0 part from the Radeon RX 6000 series. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear overall winner in the AMD card, but the two GPUs serve very different roles in legacy and modern workloads. This analysis covers where each card excels, the architectural gap between them, and the measured performance deltas.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT dominates the shared benchmark suite in the database. In the two head-to-head tests recorded, the RX 6500 XT wins both: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. Its OpenCL score of 48,289 is roughly three times the GTX 950’s 15,662, a delta of 67.6% in favor of AMD. The Vulkan gap is even larger, with the RX 6500 XT scoring 54,724 against the GTX 950’s 16,734, a 69.4% difference. For any modern API workload, the RX 6500 XT is the clear choice.

However, the GTX 950 has its own niche. Its Geekbench Metal score of 7,172 is the only benchmark where it posts a result the RX 6500 XT does not have in the database. This suggests the GTX 950 retains some relevance in Apple-centric Metal environments, though no direct comparison is available. Additionally, the GTX 950’s average benchmark score of 13,189 sits higher than the RX 6500 XT’s 11,842, despite the RX 6500 XT winning the two direct head-to-head tests. This is because the GTX 950’s benchmark set includes a Metal test that skews its average upward, while the RX 6500 XT’s average includes several low-scoring DirectX and PassMark entries.

For legacy DirectX 9 and 10 workloads, the RX 6500 XT shows surprisingly strong numbers relative to its modern design. Its PassMark DirectX 9 score of 108 and DirectX 10 score of 60 indicate that AMD’s hardware retains backward compatibility, though these are not compared directly with the GTX 950. In terms of raw compute, the RX 6500 XT’s PassMark GPU compute score of 4,456 further cements its lead in non-gaming tasks. The GTX 950’s strengths lie in its older API compatibility and its Metal support, but for any modern DirectX 12 or Vulkan application, the RX 6500 XT is decisively ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The GTX 950 uses the GM206 chip on TSMC’s 28 nm process, while the RX 6500 XT uses the Navi 24 chip on TSMC’s 6 nm node. This process shrink is dramatic: the RX 6500 XT packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 50.5M per mm². The GTX 950, by contrast, has 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, for a density of 12.9M per mm². The RX 6500 XT achieves more than double the transistor count on less than half the die area.

Clock speeds reflect the architectural leap. The GTX 950 runs at a base clock of 1024 MHz and a boost of 1188 MHz, while the RX 6500 XT starts at 2310 MHz base, boosts to 2815 MHz, and has a game clock of 2610 MHz. Memory also differs significantly: the GTX 950 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 105.8 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the RX 6500 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 143.9 GB/s. Despite a narrower bus, the RX 6500 XT’s faster memory (18 Gbps effective versus 6.6 Gbps effective) yields higher bandwidth.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward AMD. The RX 6500 XT has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the GTX 950 has 768 shaders, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6500 XT also includes 16 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the GTX 950. Pixel rate favors the RX 6500 XT at 90.08 GPixel/s versus 38.02 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 180.2 GTexel/s versus 57.02 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 5.765 TFLOPS for AMD against 1.825 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, and the RX 6500 XT supports FP16 at 11.53 TFLOPS, which the GTX 950 does not list.

API support also differs. The GTX 950 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 6500 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. Both list OpenGL 4.6. The bus interface is another divergence: the GTX 950 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 6500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x4, which may affect bandwidth in some scenarios but is not directly benchmarked here. Power requirements are modest for both, with the GTX 950 rated at 90 W TDP and the RX 6500 XT at 107 W, with both requiring a single 6-pin connector and a 250 W versus 300 W suggested PSU.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 has an average benchmark score of 13,189, while the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT scores 11,842. This is despite the RX 6500 XT winning both direct head-to-head tests.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6500 XT scores 54,724 versus the GTX 950’s 16,734, a difference of 69.4% in favor of AMD.

Q: Does the GTX 950 support ray tracing?

A: No, the GTX 950 has no ray tracing cores. The RX 6500 XT includes 16 ray tracing cores as part of its RDNA 2.0 architecture.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GTX 950 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 105.8 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 143.9 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 6500 XT boosts to 2815 MHz, while the GTX 950 boosts to 1188 MHz. The RX 6500 XT also has a game clock of 2610 MHz.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the GTX 950 and the RX 6500 XT are listed as end-of-life in the database, though they were released in 2015 and 2022 respectively.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 950 is built on a 28 nm process with a 228 mm² die, while the RX 6500 XT uses a 6 nm process with a 107 mm² die. Transistor counts are 2,940 million versus 5,400 million, and transistor density is 12.9M per mm² versus 50.5M per mm². Base clocks are 1024 MHz versus 2310 MHz, and boost clocks are 1188 MHz versus 2815 MHz. The RX 6500 XT adds a game clock of 2610 MHz that the GTX 950 lacks.

Memory differs in size, type, bus width, and bandwidth: 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus (105.8 GB/s) versus 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus (143.9 GB/s). Shading units are 768 versus 1,024, TMUs are 48 versus 64, and ROPs are identical at 32. The RX 6500 XT has 16 ray tracing cores; the GTX 950 has none. Pixel rate is 38.02 GPixel/s versus 90.08 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 57.02 GTexel/s versus 180.2 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1.825 TFLOPS versus 5.765 TFLOPS, and the RX 6500 XT lists FP16 at 11.53 TFLOPS, which the GTX 950 does not provide.

Power and interface specs also diverge: TDP is 90 W versus 107 W, suggested PSU is 250 W versus 300 W, and the bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2 for the GTX 950, versus 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RX 6500 XT. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). The GTX 950 has a listed length of 202 mm, while the RX 6500 XT has no dimension data. Both are dual-slot cards with a single 6-pin power connector. The launch MSRP for the GTX 950 is 159 USD, and for the RX 6500 XT it is 199 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct head-to-head comparisons between these GPUs, both in Geekbench compute tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6500 XT scores 48,289 against the GTX 950’s 15,662. This results in a delta of 67.6% in favor of AMD, meaning the RX 6500 XT delivers more than triple the OpenCL compute performance. This is consistent with the massive FP32 and texture rate advantages the AMD card holds.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further. The RX 6500 XT scores 54,724, while the GTX 950 scores 16,734. The delta is 69.4% in favor of AMD. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the RDNA 2.0 architecture’s higher clocks, larger shader count, and dedicated ray tracing hardware contribute to this substantial lead. The GTX 950’s Maxwell architecture, while capable in its era, lacks the throughput and feature set to compete in this workload.

Beyond the head-to-head tests, the RX 6500 XT’s other benchmark results reinforce its dominance. Its PassMark G3D score of 9,608 and PassMark GPU compute score of 4,456 indicate strong overall performance. The GTX 950 does not have these specific tests in the database, so direct comparisons are unavailable, but its average benchmark score of 13,189 is inflated by the Geekbench Metal result of 7,172, a test the RX 6500 XT does not have. The RX 6500 XT’s average of 11,842 across a broader test suite (including low DirectX 9 through 12 scores) suggests that its real-world compute lead is even more pronounced than the averages indicate.

The RX 6500 XT also holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs at 51, versus the GTX 950’s 53, which is surprising given the RX 6500 XT’s higher raw performance. This is likely due to the different benchmark distributions and the GTX 950’s Metal score boosting its relative position. In direct competition, however, the RX 6500 XT wins both recorded tests decisively, with deltas exceeding two-thirds. The GTX 950’s only unique advantage is its Metal support, which is not part of the head-to-head suite. For any user prioritizing OpenCL or Vulkan performance, the data shows the RX 6500 XT as the unequivocal winner.