GeForce GT 720 vs Radeon RX Vega 5

Place in the ranking	651	960
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.02
Power efficiency	21.27	5.78
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code name	Vega	GK208B
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	7 January 2020 (4 years ago)	29 September 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$49

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	320	192
Core clock speed	no data	797 MHz
Boost clock speed	1400 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	915 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	19 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	98 °C
Texture fill rate	no data	12.75
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.306 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	8
TMUs	no data	16

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 support	no data	PCI Express 2.0
Interface	no data	PCIe 2.0 x8
Length	no data	145 mm
Height	no data	2.713" (6.9 cm)
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	no data	DDR3 / GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	no data	1 GB or 1 GB
Memory bus width	no data	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	1.8 GBps or 5.0 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	no data	14.4 (DDR3) or 40 (GDDR5)
Shared memory	-	no data

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	no data	Dual Link DVI-DHDMIVGA
Multi monitor support	no data	3 displays
HDMI	-	+
HDCP	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray	-	+
3D Gaming	-	+
3D Vision	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12_1	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	no data	4.4
OpenCL	no data	1.2
Vulkan	-	1.1.126
CUDA	-	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

RX Vega 5 4.65
+191%

GT 720 1.60

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.

RX Vega 5 2438
+234%

GT 720 730

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

18
+200%

6−7

−200%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

8.17

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9
+200%

3−4

−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	15 +200%	5−6 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12 +200%	4−5 −200%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	13 +225%	4−5 −225%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%
Hitman 3	8 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +210%	10−11 −210%
Metro Exodus	20 +233%	6−7 −233%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18 +200%	6−7 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +221%	14−16 −221%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12 +200%	4−5 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%
Hitman 3	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +210%	10−11 −210%
Metro Exodus	15 +200%	5−6 −200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14 +250%	4−5 −250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	17 +240%	5−6 −240%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +221%	14−16 −221%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%
Hitman 3	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +210%	10−11 −210%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +250%	4−5 −250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9 +200%	3−4 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +221%	14−16 −221%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+200%

4−5
−200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Hitman 3	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +222%	9−10 −222%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+200%

3−4

−200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+400%

1−2

−400%

This is how RX Vega 5 and GT 720 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 5 is 200% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.65	1.60
Recency	7 January 2020	29 September 2014
Chip lithography	7 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	19 Watt

RX Vega 5 has a 190.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 26.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 5 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 720 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 5 is a notebook card while GeForce GT 720 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.