Radeon RX 6300M vs HD 7670M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7670M and Radeon RX 6300M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6300M outperforms HD 7670M by a whopping 1271% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1059 | 337 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.18 | 32.74 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Thames | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 17 February 2012 (13 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $629.99 | no data |
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 | 480 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 14.40 | 115.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.576 TFLOPS | 3.686 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 24 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
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 | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| 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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 32 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 72 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 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| 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.
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:
| 900p | 17
−1253%
| 230−240
+1253%
|
| Full HD | 20
−1250%
| 270−280
+1250%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 31.50 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−263%
|
27−30
+263%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−6600%
|
65−70
+6600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−263%
|
27−30
+263%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4250%
|
85−90
+4250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−983%
|
65−70
+983%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−544%
|
55−60
+544%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−282%
|
120−130
+282%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−1267%
|
40−45
+1267%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−6600%
|
65−70
+6600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−263%
|
27−30
+263%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 46
−346%
|
200−210
+346%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−500%
|
95−100
+500%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4250%
|
85−90
+4250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−983%
|
65−70
+983%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−3200%
|
30−35
+3200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−544%
|
55−60
+544%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−760%
|
40−45
+760%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−282%
|
120−130
+282%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−6600%
|
65−70
+6600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−263%
|
27−30
+263%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1000%
|
30−35
+1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−500%
|
95−100
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−983%
|
65−70
+983%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−544%
|
55−60
+544%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−760%
|
40−45
+760%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−282%
|
120−130
+282%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4250%
|
85−90
+4250%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−1557%
|
110−120
+1557%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2100%
|
150−160
+2100%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−5167%
|
150−160
+5167%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3400%
|
35−40
+3400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1200%
|
35−40
+1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−93.3%
|
27−30
+93.3%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−1350%
|
85−90
+1350%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how HD 7670M and RX 6300M compete in popular games:
- RX 6300M is 1253% faster in 900p
- RX 6300M is 1250% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 6300M is 6600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6300M is ahead in 46 tests (72%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (28%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.19 | 16.32 |
| Recency | 17 February 2012 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 35 Watt |
HD 7670M has 75% lower power consumption.
RX 6300M, on the other hand, has a 1271.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6300M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7670M 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.
