Radeon R9 M485X vs HD 6740G2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6740G2 and Radeon R9 M485X, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 M485X outperforms HD 6740G2 by a whopping 479% 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 | 524 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.80 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | no data | Amethyst |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 June 2011 (14 years ago) | 15 May 2016 (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 cores | 880 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 723 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 92.54 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.961 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 128 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 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 | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 160.0 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 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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 | 1−2
−4800%
|
45−50
+4800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−4800%
|
45−50
+4800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−833%
|
55−60
+833%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−344%
|
40−45
+344%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−833%
|
27−30
+833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−230%
|
30−35
+230%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−150%
|
90−95
+150%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−4800%
|
45−50
+4800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−315%
|
140−150
+315%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−253%
|
65−70
+253%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−833%
|
55−60
+833%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−344%
|
40−45
+344%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−833%
|
27−30
+833%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−1600%
|
30−35
+1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−230%
|
30−35
+230%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−150%
|
90−95
+150%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−253%
|
65−70
+253%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−650%
|
30−33
+650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−344%
|
40−45
+344%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−230%
|
30−35
+230%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−150%
|
90−95
+150%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−833%
|
55−60
+833%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−240%
|
16−18
+240%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−536%
|
70−75
+536%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−200%
|
45−50
+200%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−1175%
|
100−110
+1175%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−850%
|
18−20
+850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−450%
|
21−24
+450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−500%
|
45−50
+500%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−1600%
|
30−35
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the R9 M485X is 4800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 M485X performs better in 49 tests (82%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (18%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.57 | 9.09 |
| Recency | 14 June 2011 | 15 May 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
R9 M485X has a 479% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R9 M485X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6740G2 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.
