ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs HD 8670D

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking10931605
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.95no data
ArchitectureTeraScale 3 (2010−2013)Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameDevastatorRS200
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date12 March 2013 (13 years ago)5 October 2002 (23 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 cores3842
Core clock speed844 MHz183 MHz
Boost clock speed950 MHz180 MHz
Number of transistors1,303 million30 million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Wattno data
Texture fill rate22.800.37
Floating-point processing power0.7296 TFLOPSno data
ROPs82
TMUs242

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).

InterfaceIGPAGP 4x
WidthIGPno data
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
Shared memory++

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)7.0
Shader Model5.0no data
OpenGL4.41.4
OpenCL1.2N/A
VulkanN/AN/A

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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 8670D 514
+25600%
Samples: 1074
ATI IGP 340M 2
Samples: 4

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 HD18no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 0−1 no data

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 1−2 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 no data
Fortnite 3−4 no data
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Valorant 30−35
+43.5%
21−24
−43.5%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 1−2 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
+222%
9−10
−222%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Far Cry 5 2−3 no data
Fortnite 3−4 no data
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 10 no data
Metro Exodus 2−3 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Valorant 30−35
+43.5%
21−24
−43.5%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 1−2 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Far Cry 5 2−3 no data
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Valorant 30−35
+43.5%
21−24
−43.5%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 3−4 no data

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 8−9 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14 no data
Valorant 3−4 no data

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data
Far Cry 5 1−2 no data
Forza Horizon 4 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 2−3 no data

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 6−7 0−1

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 1−2 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 8670D is 250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD 8670D performs better in 18 tests (95%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (5%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 12 March 2013 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 32 nm 180 nm

HD 8670D has an age advantage of 10 years, and a 463% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 8670D and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8670D is a desktop graphics card while Radeon IGP 340M is a notebook one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 78 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8670D on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 340M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 8670D or Radeon IGP 340M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.