UHD Graphics 620 vs Radeon HD 6950

Place in the ranking	558	805
Place by popularity	not in top-100	24
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.04	no data
Power efficiency	2.34	12.30
Architecture	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	Cayman	Kaby Lake GT2
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	14 December 2010 (13 years ago)	1 September 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$299	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1408	192
Core clock speed	no data	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	800 MHz	1000 MHz
Number of transistors	2,640 million	189 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm++
Power consumption (TDP)	500 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	70.40	24.00
Floating-point processing power	2.253 TFLOPS	0.384 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	3
TMUs	88	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).

Bus support	PCIe 2.0 x16	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	Ring Bus
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	no data

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	GDDR5	LPDDR3/DDR4
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	32 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1250 MHz	System 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort	Portable Device Dependent
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire	+	-
Quick Sync	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 11	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.0	6.4
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	-	1.3

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

HD 6950 6.77
+154%

UHD Graphics 620 2.67

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

HD 6950 2613
+154%

UHD Graphics 620 1030

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

HD 6950 3230
+177%

UHD Graphics 620 1168

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	30−35 +131%	13 −131%
1440p	30−35 +131%	13 −131%
4K	18−21 +125%	8 −125%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.97	no data
1440p	9.97	no data
4K	16.61	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8 +0%	8 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	8 +0%	8 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6 +0%	6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	10 +0%	10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	38 +0%	38 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40 +0%	40 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9 +0%	9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	15 +0%	15 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30 +0%	30 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	36 +0%	36 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	34 +0%	34 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 +0%	11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 +0%	14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5 +0%	5 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +0%	14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3 +0%	3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

This is how HD 6950 and UHD Graphics 620 compete in popular games:

HD 6950 is 131% faster in 1080p
HD 6950 is 131% faster in 1440p
HD 6950 is 125% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.77	2.67
Recency	14 December 2010	1 September 2017
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	32 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	500 Watt	15 Watt

HD 6950 has a 153.6% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics 620, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 3233.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 6950 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 6950 is a desktop card while UHD Graphics 620 is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.