Radeon 520 vs HD 7690M

Place in the ranking	846	882
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	8.10	2.80
Architecture	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	Thames	Banks
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	25 December 2011 (13 years ago)	18 April 2017 (7 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	320
Core clock speed	725 MHz	1030 MHz
Boost clock speed	725 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	716 million	690 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	17.40	20.60
Floating-point processing power	0.696 TFLOPS	0.6592 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	24	20

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	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	1125 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	36 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

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.2 (11_0)	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	5.0	5.1
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

HD 7690M 2.36
+15.7%

Radeon 520 2.04

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.

HD 7690M 909
+15.5%

Radeon 520 787

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.

HD 7690M 1141

Radeon 520 2017
+76.7%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

HD 7690M 5884
+11.7%

Radeon 520 5266

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	25 +19%	21−24 −19%
Full HD	19 +35.7%	14 −35.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
+25%

4−5

−25%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Battlefield 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +2.8%	35−40 −2.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Battlefield 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −38.5%	18 +38.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +2.8%	35−40 −2.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +117%	6 −117%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +2.8%	35−40 −2.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+25%

4−5

−25%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +27.3%	10−12 −27.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

This is how HD 7690M and Radeon 520 compete in popular games:

HD 7690M is 19% faster in 900p
HD 7690M is 36% 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 HD 7690M is 200% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 520 is 38% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 7690M is ahead in 36 tests (67%)
Radeon 520 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
there's a draw in 17 tests (31%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.36	2.04
Recency	25 December 2011	18 April 2017
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	50 Watt