Radeon RX 7800 XT vs GeForce GT 625M
Aggregate performance score
Radeon RX 7800 XT outperforms GeForce GT 625M by a whopping 4921% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1006 | 26 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 95 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | 28.63 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 3 |
| GPU code name | N13M-GS | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 October 2012 (11 years ago) | 25 August 2023 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $579 |
| Current price | $310 | $669 (1.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX 7800 XT has 57160% better value for money than GT 625M.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 3840 |
| CUDA cores | 96 | no data |
| Core clock speed | Up to 625 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2430 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 263 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | Up to 14.4 billion/sec | 604.8 |
| Floating-point performance | 240.0 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 625M and Radeon RX 7800 XT compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | 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 | 2x 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 | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 19500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 14.4 GB/s | 576.0 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 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Radeon RX 7800 XT outperforms GeForce GT 625M by 4921% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon RX 7800 XT outperforms GeForce GT 625M by 4932% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Radeon RX 7800 XT outperforms GeForce GT 625M by 7024% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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 | 4−5
−5100%
| 208
+5100%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−6050%
| 123
+6050%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−7300%
| 74
+7300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−8500%
|
258
+8500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−8800%
|
178
+8800%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−2750%
|
110−120
+2750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−6333%
|
193
+6333%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−11200%
|
110−120
+11200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−4933%
|
150−160
+4933%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−9167%
|
278
+9167%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−3800%
|
110−120
+3800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−3286%
|
474
+3286%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−5950%
|
120−130
+5950%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−6000%
|
488
+6000%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
−1682%
|
196
+1682%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−8000%
|
162
+8000%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−2750%
|
110−120
+2750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5267%
|
161
+5267%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−11200%
|
110−120
+11200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−4933%
|
150−160
+4933%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−6600%
|
200−210
+6600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−3800%
|
110−120
+3800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−1771%
|
260−270
+1771%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−5950%
|
120−130
+5950%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−4875%
|
398
+4875%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−9050%
|
366
+9050%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
−1055%
|
120−130
+1055%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−6400%
|
130
+6400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−2750%
|
110−120
+2750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−4833%
|
148
+4833%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−11200%
|
110−120
+11200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−7300%
|
222
+7300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−1857%
|
274
+1857%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−4150%
|
340
+4150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−4900%
|
200
+4900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
−1218%
|
145
+1218%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−5950%
|
120−130
+5950%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−13800%
|
130−140
+13800%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−13800%
|
130−140
+13800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−11800%
|
119
+11800%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−2350%
|
95−100
+2350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−9600%
|
97
+9600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−7950%
|
161
+7950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−20100%
|
202
+20100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−1171%
|
85−90
+1171%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−5325%
|
217
+5325%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 147 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−2525%
|
100−110
+2525%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 60−65 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−9100%
|
90−95
+9100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−4350%
|
89
+4350%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 45−50 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 45−50 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 40−45 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−13000%
|
131
+13000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−2700%
|
112
+2700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2000%
|
60−65
+2000%
|
This is how GT 625M and RX 7800 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 7800 XT is 5100% faster in 1080p
- RX 7800 XT is 6050% faster in 1440p
- RX 7800 XT is 7300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 7800 XT is 20100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 7800 XT surpassed GT 625M in all 49 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.24 | 62.26 |
| Recency | 1 October 2012 | 25 August 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 263 Watt |
The Radeon RX 7800 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 625M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 625M is a notebook card while Radeon RX 7800 XT is a desktop one.
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.
