Radeon 625 vs GeForce RTX 2070
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 2070 with Radeon 625, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2070 outperforms 625 by a whopping 1396% 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 | 131 | 857 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 26.21 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 16.82 | 3.93 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | TU106 | Polaris 24 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 17 October 2018 (7 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | 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 | 2304 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1410 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1620 MHz | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,800 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 233.3 | 24.58 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.465 TFLOPS | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 144 | 24 |
| Tensor Cores | 288 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 36 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 2.3 MB | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 128 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR6 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 448.0 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
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 | 123
+1438%
| 8−9
−1438%
|
| 1440p | 85
+1600%
| 5−6
−1600%
|
| 4K | 61
+1425%
| 4−5
−1425%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.06 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.87 | no data |
| 4K | 8.18 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+2957%
|
7−8
−2957%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+1700%
|
5−6
−1700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 90−95
+1200%
|
7−8
−1200%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 126
+1475%
|
8−9
−1475%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+2957%
|
7−8
−2957%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+1700%
|
5−6
−1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 114
+1529%
|
7−8
−1529%
|
| Fortnite | 174
+1238%
|
12−14
−1238%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 142
+992%
|
12−14
−992%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+1933%
|
6−7
−1933%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 90−95
+1200%
|
7−8
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 211
+1523%
|
12−14
−1523%
|
| Valorant | 258
+486%
|
40−45
−486%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 117
+1363%
|
8−9
−1363%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+2957%
|
7−8
−2957%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+456%
|
50−55
−456%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+1700%
|
5−6
−1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 138
+431%
|
24−27
−431%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110
+1471%
|
7−8
−1471%
|
| Fortnite | 162
+1146%
|
12−14
−1146%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 135
+938%
|
12−14
−938%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+1933%
|
6−7
−1933%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 127
+2017%
|
6−7
−2017%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 90−95
+1200%
|
7−8
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 78
+1850%
|
4−5
−1850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 202
+1454%
|
12−14
−1454%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 158
+1656%
|
9−10
−1656%
|
| Valorant | 248
+464%
|
40−45
−464%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 108
+1250%
|
8−9
−1250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95
+1700%
|
5−6
−1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 130
+400%
|
24−27
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+1386%
|
7−8
−1386%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110
+746%
|
12−14
−746%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 90−95
+1200%
|
7−8
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 147
+1031%
|
12−14
−1031%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 87
+867%
|
9−10
−867%
|
| Valorant | 184
+318%
|
40−45
−318%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 156
+1100%
|
12−14
−1100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+1533%
|
6−7
−1533%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+1332%
|
18−20
−1332%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 80−85
+1500%
|
5−6
−1500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+629%
|
24−27
−629%
|
| Valorant | 243
+957%
|
21−24
−957%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 88
+1660%
|
5−6
−1660%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 88
+2100%
|
4−5
−2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 93
+1450%
|
6−7
−1450%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
+1725%
|
4−5
−1725%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 109
+2080%
|
5−6
−2080%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+473%
|
14−16
−473%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 32
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 63
+1475%
|
4−5
−1475%
|
| Valorant | 231
+1677%
|
12−14
−1677%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 116
+1557%
|
7−8
−1557%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 49
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 63
+3050%
|
2−3
−3050%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 61
+1933%
|
3−4
−1933%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 53
+1667%
|
3−4
−1667%
|
This is how RTX 2070 and Radeon 625 compete in popular games:
- RTX 2070 is 1438% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2070 is 1600% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2070 is 1425% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 2070 is 4800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 2070 surpassed Radeon 625 in all 55 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 38.00 | 2.54 |
| Recency | 17 October 2018 | 13 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 50 Watt |
RTX 2070 has a 1396.1% higher aggregate performance score, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
Radeon 625, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months, and 250% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2070 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 625 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce RTX 2070 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon 625 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
