RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile vs Radeon HD 6470M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 6470M with RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile, including specs and performance data.

HD 6470M
2011, $570
512 MB DDR3
0.54
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile
2023
8 GB GDDR6, 50 Watt
35.59
+6491%

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms HD 6470M by a whopping 6491% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1297160
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data55.06
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameSeymourAD107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date4 January 2011 (15 years ago)21 March 2023 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$569.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1603072
Core clock speed700 MHz1635 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2115 MHz
Number of transistors370 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data50 Watt
Texture fill rate5.600203.0
Floating-point processing power0.224 TFLOPS12.99 TFLOPS
ROPs448
TMUs896
Tensor Coresno data96
Ray Tracing Coresno data24
L1 Cache16 KB3 MB
L2 Cache128 KB12 MB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/s256.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.8
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.23.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA-8.9
DLSS-+

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

HD 6470M 0.54
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 35.59
+6491%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

HD 6470M 225
Samples: 2066
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 14829
+6491%
Samples: 2133

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

HD 6470M 535
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 28910
+5304%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

HD 6470M 1706
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 37844
+2118%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p10
−6400%
650−700
+6400%
Full HD13
−6438%
850−900
+6438%

Cost per frame, $

1080p43.85no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−6400%
65−70
+6400%
Palworld 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−6400%
65−70
+6400%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−6400%
260−270
+6400%
Palworld 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−6150%
500−550
+6150%
Valorant 27−30
−6381%
1750−1800
+6381%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−6371%
1100−1150
+6371%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−6400%
65−70
+6400%
Dota 2 10−12
−6264%
700−750
+6264%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−6400%
260−270
+6400%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
Palworld 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−6150%
500−550
+6150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−5733%
350−400
+5733%
Valorant 27−30
−6381%
1750−1800
+6381%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−6400%
65−70
+6400%
Dota 2 10−12
−6264%
700−750
+6264%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−6400%
260−270
+6400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−6150%
500−550
+6150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−5733%
350−400
+5733%
Valorant 27−30
−6381%
1750−1800
+6381%

Full HD
Epic

Palworld 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−6400%
130−140
+6400%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−6400%
130−140
+6400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−5733%
350−400
+5733%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−6400%
65−70
+6400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−6400%
65−70
+6400%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Palworld 1−2
−6400%
65−70
+6400%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−6233%
950−1000
+6233%
Valorant 6−7
−5733%
350−400
+5733%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−6400%
65−70
+6400%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−6400%
130−140
+6400%

This is how HD 6470M and RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is 6400% faster in 900p
  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is 6438% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.54 35.59
Recency 4 January 2011 21 March 2023
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 5 nm

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile has a 6491% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6470M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 6470M is a notebook graphics card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.7 160 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6470M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.9 227 votes

Rate RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 6470M or RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.