Radeon 740M 8500GVSRadeon RX 6950 XT
Performance, specifications and real-world gaming comparison
♜ WINNERRadeon RX 6950 XT+24%Better gaming performance
AMD
740M 8500G
VSWINNERRX 6950 XT21%Better gaming performance
AMD
RX 6950 XT
Leistung4657
Price / Performance10069
Data confidence6969
Fixed-scale H2H model. Missing metrics are omitted instead of estimated from the overall score.
SUMMARY PROFILE
Verified-metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMDAMDPerformance
Price / performance
4657
10069
COMMUNITY · VERIFIZIERTE DATEN
Streamer-Setups öffnen→Hardware von Streamern
Echte öffentliche Setups, die mit jedem Gerät verknüpft sind.
AMD740M 8500G0Noch kein verifiziertes öffentliches Setup
AMDRX 6950 XT0Noch kein verifiziertes öffentliches Setup
VERGLEICHSERGEBNIS
The devices received the same overall score
740M 8500G leads in combined gaming performance. 740M 8500G offers the better price per frame, while the final choice depends on the required features, memory, and games.
Performance is nearly identical
740M 8500G costs less
CATALOG POSITION
Full ranking →Graphics card ranking
Positions 60–65of 81
COMPARISON VERDICT
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Radeon 740M 8500G
0 LikesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Radeon 740M 8500G
100/100 · Price $169The choice is based on the price-to-performance index and launch price.
GESAMTWERTUNG
Übersicht
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
46
57Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
40
47Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
37
45Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
52
57Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
59
59
VOLLSTÄNDIGER VERGLEICH
Spezifikationen
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
TDP—335 W
HDMI—1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a
DisplayPort—1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a
USB Type-C——
DirectX—12.2
Vulkan—1.4
OpenGL—4.6
TFLOPS2.8723.65Better
Power connector—8+8 pin
Power consumption—335 W
Process node4 nmBetter7 nm
Release date20232022
Architecture—RDNA 2.0
Recommended PSU—700 W
Length—267 mm
Thickness—Triple-slot
Max monitors——
Max resolution——
Upscaling——
Compute API—OpenCL 2.1
Launch price—$1099
Transistor count—26800 million
Die size—520 mm²
Memory cache—L1 128 KB, L2 4 MB
Clock speed800 - 2800 MHz1925 - 2324 MHzBetter
Video memory- SMA16 GB GDDR6
Memory typeSMAGDDR6
Memory clock—18 GHz
Memory bus—256 bit
Bandwidth—576 GB/s
InterfaceIGPPCIe 4x16
Shader units / Cores—5120
Base clock800 MHz1925 MHzBetter
Boost clock2800 MHzBetter2324 MHz
Gaming-FPS
Loading test-rig results…
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100465721%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100546518%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100466636%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100088200%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 100057200%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from 3DMark, Geekbench, Cinebench, PassMark, Blender, or another third-party benchmark.
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100467143%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100466940%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100466636%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100467447%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100466636%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from 3DMark, Geekbench, Cinebench, PassMark, Blender, or another third-party benchmark.
API and SDK compatibility
DirectX—12.2
Vulkan—1.4
OpenGL—4.6
Upscaling——
Compute API—OpenCL 2.1
Basic information
Architecture—RDNA 2.0
Process node4 nmBesser7 nm
Release date20232022
Device class——
Detailed specifications
Transistor count—26800 million
Die size—520 mm²
Shader units / Cores—5120
Base clock800 MHz1925 MHzBesser
Boost clock2800 MHzBesser2324 MHz
Form factor and compatibility
InterfaceIGPPCIe 4x16
Length—267 mm
Thickness—Triple-slot
Recommended PSU—700 W
Power connector—8+8 pin
Connectivity and outputs
HDMI—1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a
DisplayPort—1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a
USB Type-C——
Max monitors——
Max resolution——
VRAM capacity and type
Video memory- SMA16 GB GDDR6
Memory typeSMAGDDR6
Memory bus—256 bit
TFLOPS2.8723.65Besser
HEAD TO HEAD · DISCOVER
6Weitere Vergleiche
GTX 1630NVIDIABewertungen und Fragen
KI-ERKLÄRUNG · HEAD TO HEAD
Diesen Vergleich erklären
Mehr als Prozentwerte: Ursachen, relevante Spezifikationen und praktische Auswirkungen hinter jedem Diagramm.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
ECHTE KONFIGURATIONEN
Erfahrungen von Besitzern
Echte Builds, Ergebnisse und Community-Feedback.
♢Moderator reviewed☆Helpful to the community🏅Expert badges
Häufige Fragen zum Vergleich
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: 740M 8500G or RX 6950 XT?+
740M 8500G has the higher overall gaming score, while 740M 8500G offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
740M 8500G is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
740M 8500G is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
740M 8500G offers more overall performance, while 740M 8500G offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
740M 8500G is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
740M 8500G is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
740M 8500G leads in combined 1440p performance. 740M 8500G can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
740M 8500G is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
RX 6950 XT is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
RX 6950 XT is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to 740M 8500G if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.