Radeon RX 6700 XT vs GeForce GT 420M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 420M with Radeon RX 6700 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 6700 XT outperforms GT 420M by a whopping 4898% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 1111 | 54 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 92 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 56.61 |
Power efficiency | 3.08 | 15.40 |
Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
GPU code name | GF108 | Navi 22 |
Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
Release date | 3 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 3 March 2021 (3 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $479 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 2560 |
Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 2321 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 2581 MHz |
Number of transistors | 585 million | 17,200 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 230 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 8.000 | 413.0 |
Floating-point processing power | 0.192 TFLOPS | 13.21 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 4 | 64 |
TMUs | 16 | 160 |
Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
Length | no data | 267 mm |
Width | no data | 2-slot |
Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 2000 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 384.0 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
- Other tests
- Passmark
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
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.
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 | 12
−4483%
| 550−600
+4483%
|
Full HD | 18
−750%
| 153
+750%
|
1440p | 1−2
−8000%
| 81
+8000%
|
4K | 0−1 | 47 |
Cost per frame, $
1080p | no data | 3.13 |
1440p | no data | 5.91 |
4K | no data | 10.19 |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
Atomic Heart | 3−4
−7633%
|
232
+7633%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−2171%
|
159
+2171%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−5850%
|
119
+5850%
|
Atomic Heart | 3−4
−5533%
|
169
+5533%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1657%
|
123
+1657%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4850%
|
99
+4850%
|
Fortnite | 1−2
−20400%
|
200−210
+20400%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2950%
|
180−190
+2950%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2063%
|
170−180
+2063%
|
Valorant | 30−35
−752%
|
260−270
+752%
|
Atomic Heart | 3−4
−3267%
|
101
+3267%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1386%
|
104
+1386%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−1058%
|
270−280
+1058%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4400%
|
90
+4400%
|
Dota 2 | 14−16
−1067%
|
175
+1067%
|
Fortnite | 1−2
−20400%
|
200−210
+20400%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2950%
|
180−190
+2950%
|
Metro Exodus | 1−2
−11800%
|
119
+11800%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2063%
|
170−180
+2063%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−4360%
|
223
+4360%
|
Valorant | 30−35
−752%
|
260−270
+752%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−1200%
|
91
+1200%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4150%
|
85
+4150%
|
Dota 2 | 14−16
−827%
|
139
+827%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2950%
|
180−190
+2950%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2063%
|
170−180
+2063%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2440%
|
127
+2440%
|
Valorant | 30−35
−752%
|
260−270
+752%
|
Fortnite | 1−2
−20400%
|
200−210
+20400%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−3600%
|
35−40
+3600%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−6540%
|
300−350
+6540%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2817%
|
170−180
+2817%
|
Valorant | 1−2
−29300%
|
290−300
+29300%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−5500%
|
56
+5500%
|
Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 137 |
Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−7150%
|
140−150
+7150%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−4750%
|
95−100
+4750%
|
Fortnite | 1−2
−13000%
|
130−140
+13000%
|
Atomic Heart | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−580%
|
102
+580%
|
Valorant | 5−6
−5560%
|
280−290
+5560%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 25 |
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−7000%
|
71
+7000%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−3650%
|
75−80
+3650%
|
Fortnite | 2−3
−3300%
|
65−70
+3300%
|
Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 178
+0%
|
178
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 224
+0%
|
224
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 169
+0%
|
169
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 200
+0%
|
200
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 161
+0%
|
161
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 159
+0%
|
159
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
This is how GT 420M and RX 6700 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6700 XT is 4483% faster in 900p
- RX 6700 XT is 750% faster in 1080p
- RX 6700 XT is 8000% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6700 XT is 29300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6700 XT is ahead in 43 tests (69%)
- there's a draw in 19 tests (31%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 1.03 | 51.48 |
Recency | 3 September 2010 | 3 March 2021 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 230 Watt |
GT 420M has 900% lower power consumption.
RX 6700 XT, on the other hand, has a 4898.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 420M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 420M is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6700 XT 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.