Radeon RX Vega M vs HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) with Radeon RX Vega M, including specs and performance data.
M outperforms HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) by a whopping 2602% 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 | 1272 | 377 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 80.44 |
| Architecture | Gen. 7 Ivy Bridge (2012) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Ivy Bridge GT1 | Vega |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 October 2012 (13 years ago) | 1 February 2018 (8 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 | 6 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 720 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | 1190 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 38.08 |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 32 |
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 | no data | IGP |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | no data | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| Shared memory | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.0 | 12.0 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
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 | 9
−2567%
| 240−250
+2567%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−2500%
|
130−140
+2500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2525%
|
210−220
+2525%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−2579%
|
750−800
+2579%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 11
−2536%
|
290−300
+2536%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−2536%
|
290−300
+2536%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−2500%
|
130−140
+2500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2525%
|
210−220
+2525%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2500%
|
130−140
+2500%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−2579%
|
750−800
+2579%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−2536%
|
290−300
+2536%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−2500%
|
130−140
+2500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2525%
|
210−220
+2525%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2500%
|
130−140
+2500%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−2579%
|
750−800
+2579%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−2567%
|
80−85
+2567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−2567%
|
80−85
+2567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2567%
|
160−170
+2567%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−2400%
|
350−400
+2400%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−2567%
|
80−85
+2567%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
This is how HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) and RX Vega M compete in popular games:
- RX Vega M is 2567% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.58 | 15.67 |
| Recency | 1 October 2012 | 1 February 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
RX Vega M has a 2602% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 57% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX Vega M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX Vega M is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
