Radeon 625 vs R5 (Stoney Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) and Radeon 625, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
625 outperforms R5 (Stoney Ridge) by an impressive 91% 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 | 1034 | 841 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.26 | 3.88 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Stoney Ridge | Polaris 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (9 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (6 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 | 192 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-45 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 24.58 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| 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 | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 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 data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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 | 8
−75%
| 14−16
+75%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Fortnite | 7
−85.7%
|
12−14
+85.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5
−160%
|
12−14
+160%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−26.5%
|
40−45
+26.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
−66.7%
|
50−55
+66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−52.9%
|
24−27
+52.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−225%
|
12−14
+225%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−26.5%
|
40−45
+26.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−52.9%
|
24−27
+52.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−26.5%
|
40−45
+26.5%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−225%
|
12−14
+225%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−76.9%
|
21−24
+76.9%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−283%
|
21−24
+283%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−85.7%
|
12−14
+85.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how R5 (Stoney Ridge) and Radeon 625 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 625 is 75% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 625 is 600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 625 is ahead in 43 tests (84%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (16%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.30 | 2.48 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 13 May 2019 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 50 Watt |
R5 (Stoney Ridge) has 316.7% lower power consumption.
Radeon 625, on the other hand, has a 90.8% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
The Radeon 625 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
