ATI Radeon HD 4550 vs HD Graphics 620

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 620 with Radeon HD 4550, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 620
2016
32 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4, 15 Watt
2.43
+298%

HD Graphics 620 outperforms ATI HD 4550 by a whopping 298% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8411202
Place by popularity63not in top-100
Power efficiency11.121.67
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameKaby Lake GT2RV710
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date30 August 2016 (8 years ago)30 September 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$59

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores19280
Core clock speed300 MHz600 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million242 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm++55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate24.004.800
Floating-point processing power0.384 TFLOPS0.096 TFLOPS
ROPs34
TMUs248

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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4DDR2
Maximum RAM amount32 GB256 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared655 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data10.48 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.44.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan+N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

HD Graphics 620 2.43
+298%
ATI HD 4550 0.61

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.

HD Graphics 620 935
+298%
ATI HD 4550 235

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 HD13
+333%
3−4
−333%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data19.67

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 6
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 25
+317%
6−7
−317%
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14
+367%
3−4
−367%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+311%
9−10
−311%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+400%
3−4
−400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+311%
9−10
−311%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+311%
9−10
−311%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1

This is how HD Graphics 620 and ATI HD 4550 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 620 is 333% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.43 0.61
Recency 30 August 2016 30 September 2008
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 25 Watt

HD Graphics 620 has a 298.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4550 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 620 is a notebook card while Radeon HD 4550 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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.


Intel HD Graphics 620
HD Graphics 620
ATI Radeon HD 4550
Radeon HD 4550

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.1 2683 votes

Rate HD Graphics 620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 113 votes

Rate Radeon HD 4550 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.