Radeon HD 6490M vs R6 M340DX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R6 M340DX and Radeon HD 6490M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R6 M340DX outperforms HD 6490M by a whopping 194% 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 | 852 | 1179 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Jet | Seymour |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 December 2015 (9 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,193.03 |
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 | 384 | 160 |
| Core clock speed | 955 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1030 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 370 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 24.72 | 6.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.791 TFLOPS | 0.256 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 24 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
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 | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 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 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| 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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 10
−90%
| 19
+90%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 62.79 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+126%
|
21−24
−126%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+92.9%
|
14−16
−92.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+46.7%
|
30−33
−46.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how R6 M340DX and HD 6490M compete in popular games:
- HD 6490M is 90% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R6 M340DX is 1300% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 6490M is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R6 M340DX performs better in 37 tests (95%)
- HD 6490M performs better in 1 test (3%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.65 | 0.90 |
| Recency | 12 December 2015 | 4 January 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
R6 M340DX has a 194.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R6 M340DX is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6490M 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.
