GeForce RTX 5050 vs Radeon HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics with GeForce RTX 5050, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5050 outperforms HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics by a whopping 2541% 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 | 949 | 85 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 100.00 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 26.80 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | no data | GB207 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 8 February 2012 (13 years ago) | 24 June 2025 (recently) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 880 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 400 / 600 MHz | 2317 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2572 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 16,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 205.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 13.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
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 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 320.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| 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 Connectors | no data | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 26
−2400%
| 650−700
+2400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 0.38 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−2471%
|
180−190
+2471%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−2456%
|
230−240
+2456%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−2536%
|
290−300
+2536%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2468%
|
950−1000
+2468%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−2468%
|
950−1000
+2468%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−2400%
|
500−550
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−2471%
|
180−190
+2471%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−2456%
|
230−240
+2456%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−2536%
|
290−300
+2536%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−2525%
|
210−220
+2525%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2468%
|
950−1000
+2468%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−2400%
|
500−550
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−2456%
|
230−240
+2456%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−2536%
|
290−300
+2536%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−2525%
|
210−220
+2525%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−2468%
|
950−1000
+2468%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−2471%
|
180−190
+2471%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−2400%
|
300−310
+2400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−2400%
|
450−500
+2400%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−2536%
|
290−300
+2536%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2400%
|
100−105
+2400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−2233%
|
350−400
+2233%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−2456%
|
230−240
+2456%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2400%
|
75−80
+2400%
|
This is how HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics and RTX 5050 compete in popular games:
- RTX 5050 is 2400% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.74 | 45.96 |
| Recency | 8 February 2012 | 24 June 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
RTX 5050 has a 2541.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5050 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 5050 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.
