ATI Radeon X1300 PRO vs HD 7690M XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7690M XT with Radeon X1300 PRO, including specs and performance data.
HD 7690M XT outperforms ATI X1300 PRO by a whopping 1115% 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 | 837 | 1398 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.11 | 0.47 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | R500 (2005−2007) |
| GPU code name | Thames | RV515 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2013 (12 years ago) | 1 October 2005 (19 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 | 480 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 725 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 107 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 31 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.40 | 2.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.696 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 24 | 4 |
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 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-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 | GDDR5 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.6 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
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 | 21
+2000%
| 1−2
−2000%
|
| Full HD | 23
+2200%
| 1−2
−2200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+1333%
|
3−4
−1333%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+1333%
|
3−4
−1333%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+1333%
|
3−4
−1333%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Valorant | 12−14 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 7690M XT and ATI X1300 PRO compete in popular games:
- HD 7690M XT is 2000% faster in 900p
- HD 7690M XT is 2200% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.43 | 0.20 |
| Recency | 7 January 2013 | 1 October 2005 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 31 Watt |
HD 7690M XT has a 1115% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 125% more advanced lithography process, and 24% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7690M XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1300 PRO in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7690M XT is a notebook card while Radeon X1300 PRO is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
