Radeon HD 6470M vs R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with Radeon HD 6470M, including specs and performance data.
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms HD 6470M by a whopping 370% 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 | 865 | 1276 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri Spectre | Seymour |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 January 2014 (11 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $569.99 |
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 | 720 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 370 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 5.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.224 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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).
| Interface | no data | 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 | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 12.8 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 data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| 900p | 45−50
+350%
| 10
−350%
|
| Full HD | 14
+7.7%
| 13
−7.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 43.85 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+59.3%
|
27−30
−59.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+194%
|
16−18
−194%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+136%
|
10−12
−136%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+59.3%
|
27−30
−59.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+136%
|
10−12
−136%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+59.3%
|
27−30
−59.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| 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 R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and HD 6470M compete in popular games:
- R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 350% faster in 900p
- R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 8% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 850% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) surpassed HD 6470M in all 28 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.54 | 0.54 |
| Recency | 14 January 2014 | 4 January 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 370.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6470M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop graphics card while Radeon HD 6470M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
