ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs GeForce GTX 870M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking5451605
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency6.53no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameGK104RS200
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date12 March 2014 (11 years ago)5 October 2002 (23 years ago)

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 cores13442
Core clock speed941 MHz183 MHz
Boost clock speed967 MHz180 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million30 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Wattno data
Texture fill rate108.30.37
Floating-point processing power2.599 TFLOPSno data
ROPs242
TMUs1122
L1 Cache112 KBno data
L2 Cache384 KBno data

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)AGP 4x
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount3 GBSystem Shared
Standard memory configurationGDDR5no data
Memory bus width192 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speedUp to 2500 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth120.0 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 3840x2160no data
LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200no data
VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 3840x2160no data
HDMI+-
HDCP content protection+-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI+-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)7.0
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.51.4
OpenCL1.1N/A
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

GTX 870M 3546
+177200%
Samples: 727
ATI IGP 340M 2
Samples: 4

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 HD46no data
4K19no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 45−50 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 16−18 no data

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 35−40 no data
Counter-Strike 2 45−50 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 0−1
Far Cry 5 27−30 no data
Fortnite 50−55 no data
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+417%
6−7
−417%
Valorant 85−90
+274%
21−24
−274%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 35−40 no data
Counter-Strike 2 45−50 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+1378%
9−10
−1378%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 0−1
Dota 2 60−65
+814%
7−8
−814%
Far Cry 5 27−30 no data
Fortnite 50−55 no data
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 36 no data
Metro Exodus 16−18 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+417%
6−7
−417%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+600%
4−5
−600%
Valorant 85−90
+274%
21−24
−274%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 0−1
Dota 2 60−65
+814%
7−8
−814%
Far Cry 5 27−30 no data
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+417%
6−7
−417%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+275%
4−5
−275%
Valorant 85−90
+274%
21−24
−274%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 50−55 no data

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 65−70 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12 no data
Metro Exodus 9−10 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50 no data
Valorant 95−100 no data

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 20−22 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 no data
Far Cry 5 18−20 no data
Forza Horizon 4 20−22 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 18−20 no data

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Metro Exodus 4−5 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10 no data
Valorant 40−45 0−1

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−11 no data
Counter-Strike 2 3−4 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 no data
Dota 2 30−35 no data
Far Cry 5 8−9 no data
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 870M is 1800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 870M surpassed ATI IGP 340M in all 19 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Recency 12 March 2014 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 28 nm 180 nm

GTX 870M has an age advantage of 11 years, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 870M and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M
GeForce GTX 870M
ATI Radeon IGP 340M
Radeon IGP 340M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 114 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 870M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 340M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 870M or Radeon IGP 340M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.