ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs HD 8650G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics

Place in the ranking	810	1525
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Architecture	no data	Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code name	no data	RS200
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 August 2013 (11 years ago)	5 October 2002 (22 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	768	2
Core clock speed	720 / 775 MHz	183 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	180 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	30 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	180 nm
Texture fill rate	no data	0.37
ROPs	no data	2
TMUs	no data	2

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	no data	AGP 4x
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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	no data	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	1800 - 2000 MHz	System Shared
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 data

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11	7.0
OpenGL	no data	1.4
OpenCL	no data	N/A
Vulkan	-	N/A

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

-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
+150%

2−3

−150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	14−16	0−1
Hitman 3	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +35.7%	27−30 −35.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	14−16	0−1
Hitman 3	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +35.7%	27−30 −35.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	14−16	0−1
Hitman 3	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +163%	8−9 −163%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +35.7%	27−30 −35.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18	0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+200%

2−3

−200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+100%

2−3

−100%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 8650G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics is 250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, HD 8650G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics surpassed ATI IGP 340M in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.66	0.01
Recency	1 August 2013	5 October 2002
Chip lithography	28 nm	180 nm

HD 8650G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics has a 26500% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon HD 8650G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon IGP 340M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.