Neo vs Amber Lake GT2
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | Amber Lake GT2 | Neo |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | no data | no data |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 2304 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| ROPs | 3 | 32 |
| TMUs | 24 | 144 |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | N/A |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 16 nm |
Amber Lake GT2 has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Amber Lake GT2 and Neo. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
