GeForce RTX 2060 vs ATI Radeon IGP 340M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon IGP 340M with GeForce RTX 2060, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2060 outperforms ATI IGP 340M by a whopping 366800% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 1525 | 129 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 20 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 40.87 |
Power efficiency | no data | 15.98 |
Architecture | Rage 6 (2000−2007) | Turing (2018−2022) |
GPU code name | RS200 | TU106 |
Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
Release date | 5 October 2002 (22 years ago) | 7 January 2019 (5 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $349 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 2 | 1920 |
Core clock speed | 183 MHz | 1365 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 180 MHz | 1680 MHz |
Number of transistors | 30 million | 10,800 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 180 nm | 12 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 160 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 0.37 | 201.6 |
Floating-point processing power | no data | 6.451 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 2 | 48 |
TMUs | 2 | 120 |
Tensor Cores | no data | 240 |
Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 30 |
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).
Interface | AGP 4x | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Length | no data | 229 mm |
Width | no data | 2-slot |
Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 6 GB |
Memory bus width | System Shared | 192 Bit |
Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1750 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | no data | 336.0 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
HDMI | - | + |
G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
VR Ready | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 7.0 | 12 |
Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
OpenGL | 1.4 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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.
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 | -0−1 | 118 |
1440p | -0−1 | 72 |
4K | -0−1 | 49 |
Cost per frame, $
1080p | no data | 2.96 |
1440p | no data | 4.85 |
4K | no data | 7.12 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3050%
|
60−65
+3050%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−2967%
|
92
+2967%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−5200%
|
106
+5200%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3050%
|
60−65
+3050%
|
Hitman 3 | 4−5
−2350%
|
98
+2350%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−3000%
|
248
+3000%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−4675%
|
191
+4675%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−807%
|
254
+807%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−4267%
|
131
+4267%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−4700%
|
96
+4700%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3050%
|
60−65
+3050%
|
Hitman 3 | 4−5
−2300%
|
96
+2300%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−2988%
|
247
+2988%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−3200%
|
130−140
+3200%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−744%
|
75−80
+744%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−771%
|
244
+771%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−1767%
|
56
+1767%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−3450%
|
71
+3450%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3050%
|
60−65
+3050%
|
Hitman 3 | 4−5
−1925%
|
81
+1925%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−1400%
|
120
+1400%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−3200%
|
130−140
+3200%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−711%
|
73
+711%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−60.7%
|
45
+60.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
Hitman 3 | 6−7
−800%
|
54
+800%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−4350%
|
89
+4350%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−3600%
|
74
+3600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−2700%
|
28
+2700%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 24 |
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1800%
|
38
+1800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 157
+0%
|
157
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 114
+0%
|
114
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 128
+0%
|
128
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 205
+0%
|
205
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 140
+0%
|
140
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 194
+0%
|
194
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 140
+0%
|
140
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 103
+0%
|
103
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 96
+0%
|
96
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 236
+0%
|
236
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
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 RTX 2060 is 5200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 2060 is ahead in 29 tests (41%)
- there's a draw in 41 test (59%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 0.01 | 36.69 |
Recency | 5 October 2002 | 7 January 2019 |
Chip lithography | 180 nm | 12 nm |
RTX 2060 has a 366800% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, and a 1400% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2060 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon IGP 340M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon IGP 340M is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 2060 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.