Radeon Pro Vega 20 vs GeForce GT 440
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 440 with Radeon Pro Vega 20, including specs and performance data.
Pro 20 outperforms GT 440 by a whopping 572% 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 | 955 | 435 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.08 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.17 | 9.49 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Vega 12 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 14 November 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | no data |
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 | 96 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 815 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1283 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 98 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 12.96 | 102.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.311 TFLOPS | 3.284 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 1024 KB |
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 |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 x 16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB GDDR5 or 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Standard memory config per GPU | 1 GB GDDR5 or 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 1024 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1600 MHz (GDDR5) or 900 MHz (DDR3) | 740 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 (DDR3) – 51.2 (GDDR5) | 189.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | HDMIVGADual Link DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
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 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 | 9−10
−578%
| 61
+578%
|
| 4K | 6−7
−583%
| 41
+583%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 8.78 | no data |
| 4K | 13.17 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how GT 440 and Pro Vega 20 compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 20 is 578% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 20 is 583% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.83 | 12.30 |
| Recency | 1 February 2011 | 14 November 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB GDDR5 or 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 100 Watt |
GT 440 has a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 53.8% lower power consumption.
Pro Vega 20, on the other hand, has a 572.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro Vega 20 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 440 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 440 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro Vega 20 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
