UHD Graphics 770 vs Radeon HD 6990M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6990M with UHD Graphics 770, including specs and performance data.
Graphics 770 outperforms HD 6990M by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 703 | 658 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.60 | 29.40 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Generation 12.2 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Blackcomb | Raptor Lake GT1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 July 2011 (15 years ago) | 27 September 2022 (3 years ago) |
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 cores | 1120 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 715 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,700 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 40.04 | 26.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.602 TFLOPS | 0.8448 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 56 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 224 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
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 size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | Ring Bus |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 Connectors | No outputs | Motherboard Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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.
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 54
−20.4%
| 65−70
+20.4%
|
| Full HD | 60
+233%
| 18
−233%
|
| 4K | 10−12
−30%
| 13
+30%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−148%
|
52
+148%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
11
+22.2%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12
+71.4%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−61.9%
|
34
+61.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−21.4%
|
17
+21.4%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−25%
|
35−40
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−18.2%
|
24−27
+18.2%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9
−22.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−22.2%
|
21−24
+22.2%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−11.9%
|
65−70
+11.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+133%
|
9
−133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
−18.5%
|
95−100
+18.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−7.5%
|
43
+7.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16
+14.3%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
−25%
|
35−40
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−18.2%
|
24−27
+18.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+80%
|
5
−80%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−22.2%
|
21−24
+22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−38.5%
|
18
+38.5%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−11.9%
|
65−70
+11.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−26.3%
|
24−27
+26.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−18.2%
|
24−27
+18.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−22.2%
|
21−24
+22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9
−44.4%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−11.9%
|
65−70
+11.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
−25%
|
35−40
+25%
|
| Palworld | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−22.2%
|
40−45
+22.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−8.6%
|
35−40
+8.6%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−23.4%
|
55−60
+23.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
−25%
|
24−27
+25%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
High
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how HD 6990M and UHD Graphics 770 compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 770 is 20% faster in 900p
- HD 6990M is 233% faster in 1080p
- UHD Graphics 770 is 30% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6990M is 133% faster.
- in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the UHD Graphics 770 is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6990M performs better in 6 tests (10%)
- UHD Graphics 770 performs better in 50 tests (81%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.66 | 5.70 |
| Recency | 12 July 2011 | 27 September 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 15 Watt |
UHD Graphics 770 has a 22% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 567% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics 770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6990M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6990M is a notebook graphics card while UHD Graphics 770 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
