UHD Graphics 32EUs (Alder Lake) vs Radeon R9 295X2

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 295X2 with UHD Graphics 32EUs (Alder Lake), including specs and performance data.

R9 295X2
2014, $1,499
8 GB GDDR5, 500 Watt
21.08
+515%

R9 295X2 outperforms Graphics 32EUs (Alder Lake) by a whopping 515% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking301784
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.22no data
Power efficiency3.25no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)no data
GPU code nameVesuviusno data
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date29 April 2014 (11 years ago)4 November 2021 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,499 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 cores2816 ×232
Core clock speedno data1250 MHz
Boost clock speed1018 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,200 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nmno data
Power consumption (TDP)500 Wattno data
Texture fill rate179.2 ×2no data
Floating-point processing power5.733 TFLOPS ×2no data
ROPs64 ×2no data
TMUs176 ×2no data
L1 Cache704 KBno data
L2 Cache1024 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 2.1 x16no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length307 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2 x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount8 GB ×2no data
Memory bus width512 Bit ×2no data
Memory clock speed1250 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth640 GB/s ×2no 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, 4x mini-DisplayPortno data
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212_1
Shader Model6.3no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL2.0no data
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.

R9 295X2 21.08
+515%
UHD Graphics 32EUs (Alder Lake) 3.43

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.

R9 295X2 21197
+985%
UHD Graphics 32EUs (Alder Lake) 1954

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 HD85−90
+507%
14
−507%

Cost per frame, $

1080p17.64no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 6
+0%
6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 10
+0%
10
+0%
Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 3
+0%
3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 9
+0%
9
+0%
Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7
+0%
7
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 8
+0%
8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
+0%
6
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra

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

4K
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how R9 295X2 and UHD Graphics 32EUs (Alder Lake) compete in popular games:

  • R9 295X2 is 507% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 51 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.08 3.43
Recency 29 April 2014 4 November 2021

R9 295X2 has a 515% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics 32EUs (Alder Lake), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years.

The Radeon R9 295X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 32EUs (Alder Lake) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 295X2 is a desktop graphics card while UHD Graphics 32EUs (Alder Lake) 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 105 votes

Rate Radeon R9 295X2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 15 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 32EUs (Alder Lake) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 295X2 or UHD Graphics 32EUs (Alder Lake), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.