RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Radeon HD 7420G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7420G with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms HD 7420G by a whopping 5568% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1156 | 77 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 88.53 |
| Power efficiency | 1.58 | 44.74 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper Lite | AD107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 12 February 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 128 | 2816 |
| Core clock speed | 480 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 655 MHz | 2130 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 18,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.240 | 187.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1677 TFLOPS | 12 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 48 |
| TMUs | 8 | 88 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 88 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 22 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| 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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 256.0 GB/s |
| 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 | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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 Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−4900%
|
300−310
+4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5567%
|
170−180
+5567%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−4900%
|
300−310
+4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5567%
|
170−180
+5567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−4900%
|
300−310
+4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5567%
|
170−180
+5567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−5456%
|
500−550
+5456%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−5400%
|
110−120
+5400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−5400%
|
550−600
+5400%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4900%
|
300−310
+4900%
|
| World of Tanks | 20−22
−5400%
|
1100−1150
+5400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−4900%
|
300−310
+4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5567%
|
170−180
+5567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−5456%
|
500−550
+5456%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−5400%
|
550−600
+5400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−5400%
|
220−230
+5400%
|
| World of Tanks | 3−4
−5567%
|
170−180
+5567%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5567%
|
170−180
+5567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−5400%
|
220−230
+5400%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−5500%
|
280−290
+5500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−5525%
|
900−950
+5525%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−5567%
|
850−900
+5567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−5400%
|
110−120
+5400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−5567%
|
850−900
+5567%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−5400%
|
55−60
+5400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−5400%
|
110−120
+5400%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−5525%
|
900−950
+5525%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−5400%
|
55−60
+5400%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.77 | 43.64 |
| Recency | 6 June 2012 | 12 February 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 70 Watt |
HD 7420G has 100% lower power consumption.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 5567.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7420G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7420G is a notebook card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
