Neo vs Polaris 30
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 30 | Neo |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | no data | no data |
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | 2304 |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 16 nm |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | N/A |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 16 nm |
Polaris 30 has a 33.3% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Polaris 30 and Neo. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
