Radeon HD 2600 PRO vs RX Vega 5
Aggregated performance score
RX Vega 5 outperforms HD 2600 PRO by 745% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 614 | 1176 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.51 | no data |
Architecture | Vega (2017−2021) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
GPU code name | Vega | RV630 |
Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
Release date | 7 January 2020 (4 years ago) | 28 June 2007 (16 years ago) |
Current price | $287 | $100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX Vega 5 and ATI HD 2600 PRO have a nearly equal value for money.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 320 | 120 |
Core clock speed | no data | 600 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1400 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | no data | 390 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 65 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
Texture fill rate | no data | 4.800 |
Floating-point performance | no data | 144 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon RX Vega 5 and Radeon HD 2600 PRO compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
Interface | no data | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
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 | DDR2 |
Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | no data | 16 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12_1 | 10.0 (10_0) |
Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
OpenCL | no data | N/A |
Vulkan | no data | N/A |
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
+800%
| 2−3
−800%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
Battlefield 5 | 22
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 17
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
Hitman 3 | 14
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 11
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Battlefield 5 | 18
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
Hitman 3 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Metro Exodus | 4 | 0−1 |
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4 | 0−1 |
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6 | 0−1 |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Battlefield 5 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8 | 0−1 |
Hitman 3 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Hitman 3 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8 | 0−1 |
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2 | 0−1 |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8 | 0−1 |
Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how RX Vega 5 and ATI HD 2600 PRO compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 5 is 800% faster than ATI HD 2600 PRO in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 4.65 | 0.55 |
Recency | 7 January 2020 | 28 June 2007 |
Chip lithography | 7 nm | 65 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 35 Watt |
The Radeon RX Vega 5 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 2600 PRO in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 5 is a notebook card while Radeon HD 2600 PRO is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.