ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs RX 5600 XT
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 145 | 1536 |
| Place by popularity | 80 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 52.64 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 16.18 | no data |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Rage 6 (2000−2007) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | RS200 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 21 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 5 October 2002 (22 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $279 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 2304 | 2 |
| Core clock speed | 1130 MHz | 183 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1560 MHz | 180 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 30 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 224.6 | 0.37 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.188 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | 2 |
| TMUs | 144 | 2 |
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 | PCIe 4.0 x16 | AGP 4x |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR6 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 7.0 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 1.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
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.
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 | 108 | no data |
| 1440p | 63 | no data |
| 4K | 35 | no data |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.58 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.43 | no data |
| 4K | 7.97 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 77
+1183%
|
6−7
−1183%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 83
+4050%
|
2−3
−4050%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100 | no data |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 63
+950%
|
6−7
−950%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 69
+3350%
|
2−3
−3350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190
+3700%
|
5−6
−3700%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 121 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 139 | no data |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 112
+3633%
|
3−4
−3633%
|
| Valorant | 179 | no data |
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100 | no data |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 53
+783%
|
6−7
−783%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 59
+2850%
|
2−3
−2850%
|
| Dota 2 | 146 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 66
+1000%
|
6−7
−1000%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 158
+3060%
|
5−6
−3060%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 91 | no data |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 126 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 94 | no data |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 190−200
+4675%
|
4−5
−4675%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 53
+1667%
|
3−4
−1667%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120−130
+2950%
|
4−5
−2950%
|
| Valorant | 87 | no data |
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+3375%
|
8−9
−3375%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100 | no data |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 47
+683%
|
6−7
−683%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50
+2400%
|
2−3
−2400%
|
| Dota 2 | 168 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+1450%
|
6−7
−1450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 141
+2720%
|
5−6
−2720%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85 | no data |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 190−200
+4675%
|
4−5
−4675%
|
| Valorant | 148 | no data |
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 61 | no data |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 61 | no data |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35 | no data |
| World of Tanks | 220−230 | no data |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+2725%
|
4−5
−2725%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 97 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 59 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 88 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+1867%
|
3−4
−1867%
|
| Valorant | 97
+2325%
|
4−5
−2325%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| Dota 2 | 63
+320%
|
14−16
−320%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 63
+320%
|
14−16
−320%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30 | no data |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120 | no data |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 23 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 63
+320%
|
14−16
−320%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45 | no data |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
−66.7%
|
10−11
+66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 99
+560%
|
14−16
−560%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55 | no data |
| Fortnite | 45−50 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30 | no data |
| Valorant | 38 | 0−1 |
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 5600 XT is 4675% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI IGP 340M is 67% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 5600 XT is ahead in 29 tests (97%)
- ATI IGP 340M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 21 January 2020 | 5 October 2002 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 180 nm |
RX 5600 XT has an age advantage of 17 years, and a 2471.4% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Radeon RX 5600 XT and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Radeon RX 5600 XT is a desktop card while Radeon IGP 340M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
