HD Graphics 405 vs Radeon HD 6740G2

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 6740G2 and HD Graphics 405, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD 6740G2
2011
1.72
+132%

HD 6740G2 outperforms HD Graphics 405 by a whopping 132% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9401173
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data8.45
ArchitectureTerascale 2 (2009−2015)Generation 8.0 (2014−2015)
GPU code nameno dataBraswell GT1
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date14 June 2011 (13 years ago)1 April 2015 (9 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 cores880128
Core clock speedno data200 MHz
Boost clock speedno data600 MHz
Number of transistorsno data189 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data6 Watt
Texture fill rateno data9.600
Floating-point processing powerno data0.1536 TFLOPS
ROPsno data2
TMUsno data16

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Interfaceno dataRing Bus

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 typeno dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus widthno dataSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
Shared memory-+

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 dataPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1112 (11_1)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.3
OpenCLno data3.0
Vulkan-+

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.

HD 6740G2 1.72
+132%
HD Graphics 405 0.74

  • Other tests
    • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
    • 3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

HD 6740G2 1597
+238%
HD Graphics 405 473

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

HD 6740G2 5088
+144%
HD Graphics 405 2081

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 HD30−35
+100%
15
−100%

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
Atomic Heart 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Atomic Heart 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Fortnite 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Valorant 35−40
+24.1%
27−30
−24.1%
Atomic Heart 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+70%
20−22
−70%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Dota 2 18−20
+46.2%
12−14
−46.2%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Fortnite 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Valorant 35−40
+24.1%
27−30
−24.1%
Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Dota 2 18−20
+46.2%
12−14
−46.2%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+80%
5−6
−80%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Valorant 35−40
+24.1%
27−30
−24.1%
Fortnite 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Valorant 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Fortnite 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Atomic Heart 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Fortnite 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1

This is how HD 6740G2 and HD Graphics 405 compete in popular games:

  • HD 6740G2 is 100% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6740G2 is 267% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD 6740G2 is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.72 0.74
Recency 14 June 2011 1 April 2015
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm

HD 6740G2 has a 132.4% higher aggregate performance score.

HD Graphics 405, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon HD 6740G2 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 405 in performance tests.

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 HD 6740G2
Radeon HD 6740G2
Intel HD Graphics 405
HD Graphics 405

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Radeon HD 6740G2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8
221 vote

Rate HD Graphics 405 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 6740G2 or HD Graphics 405, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.