GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile vs ATI Radeon X700 PRO
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon X700 PRO with GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2060 Mobile outperforms X700 PRO by a whopping 14833% 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 | 1485 | 243 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.42 | 18.08 |
| Architecture | R400 (2004−2008) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | RV410 | TU106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2004 (22 years ago) | 29 January 2019 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $179 | 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 | no data | 1920 |
| Core clock speed | 425 MHz | 960 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 120 million | 10,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 110 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 115 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.400 | 144.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 4.608 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 48 |
| TMUs | 8 | 120 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 240 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 30 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1.9 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 3 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 size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 128 MB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 430 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 13.76 GB/s | 336.0 GB/s |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0b (9_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 0−1 | 104 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 66 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 42 |
Cost per frame, $
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 96
+0%
|
96
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 162
+0%
|
162
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 108
+0%
|
108
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 171
+0%
|
171
+0%
|
| Valorant | 223
+0%
|
223
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 111
+0%
|
111
+0%
|
| Valorant | 196
+0%
|
196
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Valorant | 123
+0%
|
123
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 113
+0%
|
113
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 212
+0%
|
212
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Valorant | 171
+0%
|
171
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.18 | 26.88 |
| Recency | 1 September 2004 | 29 January 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 128 MB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 110 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 115 Watt |
ATI X700 PRO has 248% lower power consumption.
RTX 2060 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 14833% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 4700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 817% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X700 PRO in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon X700 PRO is a desktop graphics card while GeForce RTX 2060 Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
