Radeon RX 6300M vs Graphics

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Graphics with Radeon RX 6300M, including specs and performance data.

Graphics
15 Watt
1.71

RX 6300M outperforms Graphics by a whopping 740% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking911339
Place by popularity11not in top-100
Power efficiency9.0832.67
ArchitectureGCN 5.1 (2018−2022)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameRenoirNavi 24
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release dateno data4 January 2022 (3 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 cores448768
Core clock speedno data2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1500 MHz2400 MHz
Number of transistorsno data5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate42.00115.2
Floating-point processing power1.344 TFLOPS3.686 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs2848
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 4.0 x4
WidthIGPno data
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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared32 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data72 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
Resizable BAR-+

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCLno data2.2
Vulkan-1.3

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.

Radeon Graphics 1.71
RX 6300M 14.36
+740%

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.

Radeon Graphics 764
RX 6300M 6421
+740%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Dota 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.71 14.36
Chip lithography 7 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 35 Watt

Graphics has 133.3% lower power consumption.

RX 6300M, on the other hand, has a 739.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6300M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Graphics in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Graphics is a desktop card while Radeon RX 6300M is a notebook one.

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.


AMD Radeon Graphics
Radeon Graphics
AMD Radeon RX 6300M
Radeon RX 6300M

Other comparisons

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.


2.9 7001 vote

Rate Radeon Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 11 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6300M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Graphics or Radeon RX 6300M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.