Radeon RX 6300 vs GeForce GTX 950
Radeon RX 6300
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 950
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 Radeon RX 6300 is positioned at rank #14 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Excellent 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 Radeon RX 6300
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon RX 6300 is significantly newer (2022 vs 2015). The Radeon RX 6300 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce GTX 950 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 950 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.7% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon RX 6300 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Radeon RX 6300 | GeForce GTX 950 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.7%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (6nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon RX 6300 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $40 versus $48 for the GeForce GTX 950, it costs 17% less. While it maintains competitive performance, this results in a 19.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon RX 6300 | GeForce GTX 950 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+19.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($40) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($48) |
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon RX 6300 and GeForce GTX 950
Radeon RX 6300
The Radeon RX 6300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 4 2022. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 2000 MHz to 2400 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 35W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 12 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,319 points.
GeForce GTX 950
The GeForce GTX 950 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 20 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1024 MHz to 1188 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 90W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,357 points. Launch price was $159.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon RX 6300 scores 5,319 and the GeForce GTX 950 reaches 5,357 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon RX 6300 is built on RDNA 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 950 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on 6 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 768 (Radeon RX 6300) vs 768 (GeForce GTX 950). Raw compute: 3.686 TFLOPS (Radeon RX 6300) vs 1.825 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 950). Boost clocks: 2400 MHz vs 1188 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6300 | GeForce GTX 950 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5,319 | 5,357 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.686 TFLOPS+102% | 1.825 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 2400 MHz+102% | 1188 MHz |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 288 KB+13% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
A critical advantage for the Radeon RX 6300 is support for FSR 3 / AFMF. This allows it to generate entire frames using AI/Algorithms, essentially doubling the frame rate in CPU-bound scenarios or heavy ray-tracing titles. The GeForce GTX 950 lacks specific hardware/driver support for this native frame generation tier.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6300 | GeForce GTX 950 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 3 (Native) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 / AFMF (Driver) | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon RX 6300 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 950 has 2 GB. The Radeon RX 6300 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Memory bandwidth: 64 GB/s (Radeon RX 6300) vs 106 GB/s (GeForce GTX 950) — a 65.6% advantage for the GeForce GTX 950. Bus width: 32-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6300 | GeForce GTX 950 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 106 GB/s+66% |
| Bus Width | 32-bit | 128-bit+300% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 1 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12_2 (Radeon RX 6300) vs 12_1 (GeForce GTX 950). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 4.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6300 | GeForce GTX 950 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12_2 | 12_1 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 4+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCN 3.0 (Radeon RX 6300) vs NVENC 2nd Gen (GeForce GTX 950). Decoder: VCN 3.0 vs NVDEC 2nd Gen.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6300 | GeForce GTX 950 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCN 3.0 | NVENC 2nd Gen |
| Decoder | VCN 3.0 | NVDEC 2nd Gen |
| Codecs | — | H.264,H.265 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon RX 6300 draws 35W versus the GeForce GTX 950's 90W — a 88% difference. The Radeon RX 6300 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (Radeon RX 6300) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 950). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin. Card length: 160mm vs 202mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | Radeon RX 6300 | GeForce GTX 950 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 35W-61% | 90W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 160mm | 202mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Perf/Watt | 152.0+155% | 59.5 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon RX 6300 launched at $60 MSRP and currently averages $40, while the GeForce GTX 950 launched at $159 and now averages $48. The Radeon RX 6300 costs 16.7% less ($8 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 133.0 (Radeon RX 6300) vs 111.6 (GeForce GTX 950) — the Radeon RX 6300 offers 19.2% better value. The Radeon RX 6300 is the newer GPU (2022 vs 2015).
| Feature | Radeon RX 6300 | GeForce GTX 950 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $60-62% | $159 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40-17% | $48 |
| Performance per Dollar | 133.0+19% | 111.6 |
| Codename | Navi 24 | GM206 |
| Release | January 4 2022 | August 20 2015 |
| Ranking | #379 | #425 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon RX 6300 and GeForce GTX 950
