A10G vs Radeon HD 7480D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7480D with A10G, including specs and performance data.
A10G outperforms HD 7480D by a whopping 4772% 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 | 1252 | 187 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.80 | 16.83 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper Lite | GA102 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (13 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $53 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 128 | 9216 |
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 1320 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | 1710 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 6.400 | 492.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2048 TFLOPS | 31.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 96 |
| TMUs | 8 | 288 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 288 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 9 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 6 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).
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | IGP | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 8-pin EPS |
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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1563 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 600.2 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| 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.
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.
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:
| Full HD | 11
−4445%
| 500−550
+4445%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.82 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−4567%
|
140−150
+4567%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−4700%
|
240−250
+4700%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−4567%
|
140−150
+4567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−4721%
|
1350−1400
+4721%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27
−4715%
|
1300−1350
+4715%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−4483%
|
550−600
+4483%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−4700%
|
240−250
+4700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 3−4
−4567%
|
140−150
+4567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4733%
|
290−300
+4733%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−4721%
|
1350−1400
+4721%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−4483%
|
550−600
+4483%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−4700%
|
240−250
+4700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−4275%
|
350−400
+4275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4733%
|
290−300
+4733%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−4721%
|
1350−1400
+4721%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Palworld | 3−4
−4567%
|
140−150
+4567%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−4567%
|
140−150
+4567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−4186%
|
300−310
+4186%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
| Palworld | 1−2
−4400%
|
45−50
+4400%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−4567%
|
700−750
+4567%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−4733%
|
290−300
+4733%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4650%
|
95−100
+4650%
|
This is how HD 7480D and A10G compete in popular games:
- A10G is 4445% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.67 | 32.64 |
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 12 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 150 Watt |
HD 7480D has 131% lower power consumption.
A10G, on the other hand, has a 4772% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The A10G is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7480D in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7480D is a desktop graphics card while A10G is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
