Radeon HD 8510G vs HD 6720G2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6720G2 and Radeon HD 8510G, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 6720G2 outperforms HD 8510G by an impressive 69% 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 | 1025 | 1188 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.96 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) |
| GPU code name | no data | Devastator |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 June 2011 (14 years ago) | 23 May 2013 (12 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 | 880 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 554 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 720 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,303 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 17.28 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.553 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | 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 | no data | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+43.5%
|
21−24
−43.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 6720G2 is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6720G2 performs better in 31 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.50 | 0.89 |
| Recency | 14 June 2011 | 23 May 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 32 nm |
HD 6720G2 has a 69% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 8510G, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 6720G2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8510G in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
