ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5165 vs HD Graphics 620
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 620 and Mobility Radeon HD 5165, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD Graphics 620 outperforms Mobility HD 5165 by a whopping 122% 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 | 906 | 1149 |
| Place by popularity | 78 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 11.47 | 2.21 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | Kaby Lake GT2 | M96 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 August 2016 (9 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 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 cores | 192 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 514 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm++ | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.00 | 19.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.384 TFLOPS | 0.384 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 28.8 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
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.
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:
| Full HD | 14
+133%
| 6−7
−133%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 11
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+32.3%
|
30−35
−32.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 43
+72%
|
24−27
−72%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
+60%
|
14−16
−60%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+32.3%
|
30−35
−32.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
+60%
|
14−16
−60%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+32.3%
|
30−35
−32.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+100%
|
10−12
−100%
|
| Valorant | 18−20 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how HD Graphics 620 and ATI Mobility HD 5165 compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics 620 is 133% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD Graphics 620 is 1100% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI Mobility HD 5165 is 20% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD Graphics 620 performs better in 40 tests (95%)
- ATI Mobility HD 5165 performs better in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.22 | 1.00 |
| Recency | 30 August 2016 | 7 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
HD Graphics 620 has a 122% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.
The HD Graphics 620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5165 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
