GeForce GT 415M vs Radeon HD 7620G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7620G and GeForce GT 415M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 7620G outperforms GT 415M by a significant 27% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1133 | 1171 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.58 | 4.24 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Devastator | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 3 September 2010 (14 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 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 360 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 497 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 11.93 | 4.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3817 TFLOPS | 0.096 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 24 | 8 |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 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 | 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 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 37
+37%
| 27−30
−37%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+6.9%
|
27−30
−6.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+15%
|
20−22
−15%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+6.9%
|
27−30
−6.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+6.9%
|
27−30
−6.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how HD 7620G and GT 415M compete in popular games:
- HD 7620G is 37% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the HD 7620G is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 7620G is ahead in 17 tests (53%)
- there's a draw in 15 tests (47%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.81 | 0.64 |
| Recency | 15 May 2012 | 3 September 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 12 Watt |
HD 7620G has a 26.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.
GT 415M, on the other hand, has 108.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7620G is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 415M 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.
