CPU
GPU
FireStream 9170
Popular choices:
GeForce RTX 2060
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The FireStream 9170 is positioned at rank #393 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FireStream 9170
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce RTX 2060 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2010). The GeForce RTX 2060 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FireStream 9170 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce RTX 2060 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2081.5% higher G3D Mark score and 1100% more VRAM (6 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the FireStream 9170.
| Insight | FireStream 9170 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2081.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2081.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) | Turing (2018−2022) (12nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 2 Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | 🎮 High Capacity (6 GB) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce RTX 2060 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $120 (vs $20), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 263.6% better value per dollar than the FireStream 9170.
| Insight | FireStream 9170 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+263.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($20) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($120) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FireStream 9170 and GeForce RTX 2060
FireStream 9170
The FireStream 9170 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 23 2010. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 825 MHz. It has 1600 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 647 points.
GeForce RTX 2060
The GeForce RTX 2060 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 7 2019. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1365 MHz to 1680 MHz. It has 1920 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 160W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 30 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 14,114 points. Launch price was $349.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the FireStream 9170 scores 647 versus the GeForce RTX 2060's 14,114 — the GeForce RTX 2060 leads by 2081.5%. The FireStream 9170 is built on TeraScale 2 while the GeForce RTX 2060 uses Turing, both on 40 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 1,600 (FireStream 9170) vs 1,920 (GeForce RTX 2060). Raw compute: 2.64 TFLOPS (FireStream 9170) vs 6.451 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 2060).
| Feature | FireStream 9170 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 647 | 14,114+2081% |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Turing |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 1600 | 1920+20% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.64 TFLOPS | 6.451 TFLOPS+144% |
| ROPs | 32 | 48+50% |
| TMUs | 80 | 120+50% |
| L1 Cache | 0.16 MB | 1.9 MB+1088% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 3 MB+500% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FireStream 9170 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | DLSS 2.0 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 / AFMF (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FireStream 9170 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce RTX 2060 has 6 GB. The GeForce RTX 2060 offers 1100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 192-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (FireStream 9170) vs 3 MB (GeForce RTX 2060) — the GeForce RTX 2060 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FireStream 9170 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 6 GB+1100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 192-bit+200% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 3 MB+500% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.1 (FireStream 9170) vs 12 Ultimate (12_2) (GeForce RTX 2060). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 4.
| Feature | FireStream 9170 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2)+19% |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6+39% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 4+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (FireStream 9170) vs NVENC (Turing) (GeForce RTX 2060). Decoder: UVD+ vs NVDEC (Turing). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (FireStream 9170) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,VP8,MPEG-2,VC-1 (GeForce RTX 2060).
| Feature | FireStream 9170 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC (Turing) |
| Decoder | UVD+ | NVDEC (Turing) |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,H.265,VP9,VP8,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The FireStream 9170 draws 225W versus the GeForce RTX 2060's 160W — a 33.8% difference. The GeForce RTX 2060 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FireStream 9170) vs 500W (GeForce RTX 2060). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 8-pin. Card length: 241mm vs 229mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 72.
| Feature | FireStream 9170 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 160W-29% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-30% | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 8-pin |
| Length | 241mm | 229mm |
| Height | 111mm | 113mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 72-15% |
| Perf/Watt | 2.9 | 88.2+2941% |
Value Analysis
The FireStream 9170 launched at $1999 MSRP and currently averages $20, while the GeForce RTX 2060 launched at $349 and now averages $120. The FireStream 9170 costs 83.3% less ($100 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 32.4 (FireStream 9170) vs 117.6 (GeForce RTX 2060) — the GeForce RTX 2060 offers 263% better value. The GeForce RTX 2060 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2010).
| Feature | FireStream 9170 | GeForce RTX 2060 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1999 | $349-83% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20-83% | $120 |
| Performance per Dollar | 32.4 | 117.6+263% |
| Codename | Cypress | TU106 |
| Release | June 23 2010 | January 7 2019 |
| Ranking | #631 | #168 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FireStream 9170 and GeForce RTX 2060
