HD Graphics 620 vs Radeon R7 240

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 240 with HD Graphics 620, including specs and performance data.

R7 240
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
2.04

HD Graphics 620 outperforms R7 240 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking900895
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.16no data
Power efficiency5.4811.33
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameOlandKaby Lake GT2
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)30 August 2016 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$69 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores320192
Core clock speedno data300 MHz
Boost clock speed780 MHz1000 MHz
Number of transistors950 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm++
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate14.0024.00
Floating-point processing power0.448 TFLOPS0.384 TFLOPS
ROPs83
TMUs2024
L1 Cache80 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KBno 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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8Ring Bus
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsN/Ano data

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 typeGDDR5DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4
Maximum RAM amount2 GB32 GB
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1150 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth72 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGAPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data
Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan-+

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.

R7 240 2.04
HD Graphics 620 2.11
+3.4%

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.

R7 240 903
Samples: 3704
HD Graphics 620 935
+3.5%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R7 240 1220
+30.6%
HD Graphics 620 934

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 HD12−14
−16.7%
14
+16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.75no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 6
+0%
6
+0%
Fortnite 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 11
+0%
11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9
+0%
9
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 43
+0%
43
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3
+0%
3
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5
+0%
5
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how R7 240 and HD Graphics 620 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 620 is 17% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.04 2.11
Recency 8 October 2013 30 August 2016
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 15 Watt

HD Graphics 620 has a 3.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R7 240 and HD Graphics 620.

Be aware that Radeon R7 240 is a desktop graphics card while HD Graphics 620 is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 240
Radeon R7 240
Intel HD Graphics 620
HD Graphics 620

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.


3.3 1333 votes

Rate Radeon R7 240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 2982 votes

Rate HD Graphics 620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 240 or HD Graphics 620, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.