Radeon R5 M330 vs HD 6740G2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6740G2 and Radeon R5 M330, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 6740G2 outperforms R5 M330 by a moderate 11% 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 | 1004 | 1040 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 6.07 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | no data | Exo |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 June 2011 (14 years ago) | 5 May 2015 (10 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 | 320 |
| Compute units | no data | 5 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 955 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1030 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 690 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 20.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.6592 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 20 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
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 |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 GB/s |
| 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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| HD3D | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| DualGraphics | - | + |
| ZeroCore | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | Not Listed |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| Mantle | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 9−10
+0%
| 9
+0%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+6.3%
|
30−35
−6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+2.9%
|
35−40
−2.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how HD 6740G2 and R5 M330 compete in popular games:
- A tie in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6740G2 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6740G2 performs better in 28 tests (62%)
- there's a draw in 17 tests (38%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.57 | 1.42 |
| Recency | 14 June 2011 | 5 May 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
HD 6740G2 has a 10.6% higher aggregate performance score.
R5 M330, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 6740G2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M330 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.
