ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs HD 8970M Crossfire

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3531605
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency6.56no data
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameNeptune CFRS200
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 May 2012 (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 cores25602
Core clock speed850 MHz183 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHz180 MHz
Number of transistorsno data30 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Wattno data
Texture fill rateno data0.37
ROPsno data2
TMUsno data2

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 sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataAGP 4x
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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus width2x 256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed4800 MHzSystem 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 dataNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.17.0
OpenGLno data1.4
OpenCLno dataN/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:

Full HD69no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 95−100 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 35−40 no data

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 70−75 no data
Counter-Strike 2 95−100 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Far Cry 5 55−60 no data
Fortnite 90−95 no data
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+3450%
2−3
−3450%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+983%
6−7
−983%
Valorant 130−140
+487%
21−24
−487%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 70−75 no data
Counter-Strike 2 95−100 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 128
+1322%
9−10
−1322%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Dota 2 100−110
+1371%
7−8
−1371%
Far Cry 5 55−60 no data
Fortnite 90−95 no data
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+3450%
2−3
−3450%
Forza Horizon 5 50−55 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 65−70 no data
Metro Exodus 35−40 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+983%
6−7
−983%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Valorant 130−140
+487%
21−24
−487%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 70−75 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 0−1
Dota 2 100−110
+1371%
7−8
−1371%
Far Cry 5 55−60 no data
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+3450%
2−3
−3450%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+983%
6−7
−983%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Valorant 130−140
+487%
21−24
−487%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 90−95 no data

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+1600%
2−3
−1600%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30 no data
Metro Exodus 21−24 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170 no data
Valorant 160−170 no data

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 45−50 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 no data
Far Cry 5 35−40 no data
Forza Horizon 4 40−45 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 40−45 no data

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 14−16 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+129%
14−16
−129%
Metro Exodus 14−16 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27 no data
Valorant 95−100 0−1

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 24−27 no data
Counter-Strike 2 14−16 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 no data
Dota 2 60−65 no data
Far Cry 5 18−20 no data
Forza Horizon 4 30−33 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 8970M Crossfire is 3450% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, HD 8970M Crossfire surpassed ATI IGP 340M in all 19 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 May 2012 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 28 nm 180 nm

HD 8970M Crossfire has an age advantage of 9 years, and a 543% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.

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.


4.8 4 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8970M Crossfire 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 8970M Crossfire or Radeon IGP 340M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.