Radeon RX 6850M XT vs HD 7600G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7600G and Radeon RX 6850M XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6850M XT outperforms HD 7600G by a whopping 5137% 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 | 1177 | 102 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.17 | 19.10 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Devastator | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2012 (12 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (3 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 | 384 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 320 MHz | 2321 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 424 MHz | 2581 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 165 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.18 | 413.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3256 TFLOPS | 13.21 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 24 | 160 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| 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 | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 384.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 outputs | No outputs |
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 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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.
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 | 2−3
−6750%
| 137
+6750%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−8400%
| 85
+8400%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−5600%
| 57
+5600%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−7900%
|
160
+7900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−6700%
|
136
+6700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−10800%
|
109
+10800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−3120%
|
160−170
+3120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1913%
|
160−170
+1913%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−721%
|
230−240
+721%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−1164%
|
270−280
+1164%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−5200%
|
106
+5200%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−769%
|
113
+769%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−10400%
|
105
+10400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−3120%
|
160−170
+3120%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−11500%
|
116
+11500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1913%
|
160−170
+1913%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−3200%
|
198
+3200%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−721%
|
230−240
+721%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4250%
|
87
+4250%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−631%
|
95
+631%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−10100%
|
102
+10100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−3120%
|
160−170
+3120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1913%
|
160−170
+1913%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1933%
|
122
+1933%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−721%
|
230−240
+721%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−3500%
|
100−110
+3500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
−7200%
|
290−300
+7200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2088%
|
170−180
+2088%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−6000%
|
120−130
+6000%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−11100%
|
110−120
+11100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−560%
|
99
+560%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−6225%
|
250−260
+6225%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2850%
|
55−60
+2850%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2700%
|
55−60
+2700%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 126
+0%
|
126
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 89
+0%
|
89
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
This is how HD 7600G and RX 6850M XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6850M XT is 6750% faster in 1080p
- RX 6850M XT is 8400% faster in 1440p
- RX 6850M XT is 5600% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6850M XT is 11500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6850M XT is ahead in 31 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 34 tests (52%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.79 | 41.37 |
| Recency | 1 September 2012 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 165 Watt |
HD 7600G has 768.4% lower power consumption.
RX 6850M XT, on the other hand, has a 5136.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6850M XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7600G 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.
