ATI Radeon X700 PRO vs HD 8970M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8970M with Radeon X700 PRO, including specs and performance data.
HD 8970M outperforms X700 PRO by a whopping 5050% 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 | 515 | 1470 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.14 | 0.42 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | R400 (2004−2008) |
| GPU code name | Neptune | RV410 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 May 2013 (12 years ago) | 1 September 2004 (21 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $179 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1280 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 425 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 120 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 72.00 | 3.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.304 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 80 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1200 MHz | 430 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 153.6 GB/s | 13.76 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 9.0b (9_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
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:
| Full HD | 53
+5200%
| 1−2
−5200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 179.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 18−20 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 55−60
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 90−95
+9000%
|
1−2
−9000%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 148
+7300%
|
2−3
−7300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+6700%
|
1−2
−6700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 55−60
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 39 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 90−95
+9000%
|
1−2
−9000%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+6700%
|
1−2
−6700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 90−95
+9000%
|
1−2
−9000%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+7000%
|
1−2
−7000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 100−110
+5100%
|
2−3
−5100%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 45−50 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 8970M and ATI X700 PRO compete in popular games:
- HD 8970M is 5200% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.27 | 0.18 |
| Recency | 14 May 2013 | 1 September 2004 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 33 Watt |
HD 8970M has a 5050% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 293% more advanced lithography process.
ATI X700 PRO, on the other hand, has 203% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 8970M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X700 PRO in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8970M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon X700 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.
