Radeon Pro Vega II Duo vs GeForce 825M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 825M with Radeon Pro Vega II Duo, including specs and performance data.
Pro II Duo outperforms 825M by a whopping 1699% 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 | 968 | 178 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.40 |
| Power efficiency | 4.25 | 5.31 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | Vega 20 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 January 2014 (12 years ago) | 3 June 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $4,399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 384 | 4096 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 941 MHz | 1720 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 13,230 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 475 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.11 | 440.3 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7227 TFLOPS | 14.09 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 ×2 |
| TMUs | 32 | 256 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 4 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | Apple MPX |
| Width | no data | Quad-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | DDR3 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 32 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 4096 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 1.02 TB/s ×2 |
| 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 | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 4x Thunderbolt |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 35
−1614%
| 600−650
+1614%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 7.33 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1600%
|
170−180
+1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1627%
|
190−200
+1627%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1611%
|
650−700
+1611%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−1611%
|
650−700
+1611%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−1567%
|
350−400
+1567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1600%
|
170−180
+1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1627%
|
190−200
+1627%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1611%
|
650−700
+1611%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−1567%
|
350−400
+1567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−1600%
|
170−180
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1627%
|
190−200
+1627%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1611%
|
650−700
+1611%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−1669%
|
230−240
+1669%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−1567%
|
300−310
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−1650%
|
210−220
+1650%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1686%
|
250−260
+1686%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−1678%
|
160−170
+1678%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
This is how GeForce 825M and Pro Vega II Duo compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega II Duo is 1614% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.82 | 32.74 |
| Recency | 27 January 2014 | 3 June 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 475 Watt |
GeForce 825M has 1339% lower power consumption.
Pro Vega II Duo, on the other hand, has a 1699% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro Vega II Duo is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 825M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 825M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega II Duo 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.
