ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs RX 6900 XT

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking351605
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation29.43no data
Power efficiency16.38no data
ArchitectureRDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameNavi 21RS200
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date28 October 2020 (5 years ago)5 October 2002 (23 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999 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 cores51202
Core clock speed1825 MHz183 MHz
Boost clock speed2250 MHz180 MHz
Number of transistors26,800 million30 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)300 Wattno data
Texture fill rate720.00.37
Floating-point processing power23.04 TFLOPSno data
ROPs1282
TMUs3202
Ray Tracing Cores80no data
L0 Cache1.3 MBno data
L1 Cache1 MBno data
L2 Cache4 MBno data
L3 Cache128 MBno 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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16AGP 4x
Length267 mmno data
Width3-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount16 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed2000 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth512.0 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+
Resizable BAR+-

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 HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-CNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)7.0
Shader Model6.8no data
OpenGL4.61.4
OpenCL2.1N/A
Vulkan1.3N/A

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

RX 6900 XT 26670
+1333400%
Samples: 7842
ATI IGP 340M 2
Samples: 4

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 HD199no data
1440p137no data
4K85no data

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.02no data
1440p7.29no data
4K11.75no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 300−350 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 190−200 no data

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 195 no data
Counter-Strike 2 300−350 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 0−1
Far Cry 5 190−200 no data
Fortnite 300−350 no data
Forza Horizon 4 283
+14050%
2−3
−14050%
Forza Horizon 5 190−200 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+2800%
6−7
−2800%
Valorant 350−400
+1478%
21−24
−1478%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 196 no data
Counter-Strike 2 300−350 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+3000%
9−10
−3000%
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 0−1
Dota 2 160−170
+2314%
7−8
−2314%
Far Cry 5 190−200 no data
Fortnite 300−350 no data
Forza Horizon 4 279
+13850%
2−3
−13850%
Forza Horizon 5 190−200 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 160−170 no data
Metro Exodus 164 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+2800%
6−7
−2800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 323
+7975%
4−5
−7975%
Valorant 350−400
+1478%
21−24
−1478%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 197 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 160−170 0−1
Dota 2 160−170
+2314%
7−8
−2314%
Far Cry 5 190−200 no data
Forza Horizon 4 248
+12300%
2−3
−12300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+2800%
6−7
−2800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 164
+4000%
4−5
−4000%
Valorant 411
+1687%
21−24
−1687%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 300−350 no data

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 190−200
+9700%
2−3
−9700%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 500−550 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 130−140 no data
Metro Exodus 102 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 no data
Valorant 400−450 no data

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 196 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95 no data
Far Cry 5 160−170 no data
Forza Horizon 4 231 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 150−160
+15300%
1−2
−15300%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 no data

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 85−90 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 150−160
+1021%
14−16
−1021%
Metro Exodus 67 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 122 no data
Valorant 300−350 0−1

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 134 no data
Counter-Strike 2 85−90 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 no data
Dota 2 150−160 no data
Far Cry 5 100−110 no data
Forza Horizon 4 162 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+9500%
1−2
−9500%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+7800%
1−2
−7800%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6900 XT is 15300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, RX 6900 XT surpassed ATI IGP 340M in all 19 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Recency 28 October 2020 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 7 nm 180 nm

RX 6900 XT has an age advantage of 18 years, and a 2471% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX 6900 XT and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon RX 6900 XT is a desktop graphics card while Radeon IGP 340M 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.


4.1 4411 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6900 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Radeon IGP 340M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 6900 XT or Radeon IGP 340M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.