Radeon HD 8410G vs RX Vega 5

Place in the ranking	656	1085
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	21.34	2.23
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)
GPU code name	Vega	Scrapper
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	7 January 2020 (5 years ago)	23 May 2013 (11 years ago)

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	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	1400 MHz	720 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	1,303 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	8.640
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.2765 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	4
TMUs	no data	12

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

no data

IGP

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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	no data	System Shared
Memory bus width	no data	System Shared
Memory clock speed	no data	System Shared
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

no data

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12_1	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	no data	5.0
OpenGL	no data	4.4
OpenCL	no data	1.2
Vulkan	-	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

19
+375%

4−5

−375%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +125%	4−5 −125%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Forza Horizon 4	21 +163%	8−9 −163%
Forza Horizon 5	12 +500%	2−3 −500%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18 +200%	6−7 −200%
Valorant	18 +350%	4−5 −350%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Dota 2	21	0−1
Far Cry 5	21 +110%	10−11 −110%
Fortnite	27−30 +575%	4−5 −575%
Forza Horizon 4	17 +113%	8−9 −113%
Forza Horizon 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Grand Theft Auto V	13	0−1
Metro Exodus	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	41 +215%	12−14 −215%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4 −50%	6−7 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +114%	7−8 −114%
Valorant	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
World of Tanks	50 +100%	24−27 −100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Dota 2	37	0−1
Far Cry 5	21−24 +130%	10−11 −130%
Forza Horizon 4	14 +75%	8−9 −75%
Forza Horizon 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 +208%	12−14 −208%
Valorant	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	4−5	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	4−5	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30−33 +400%	6−7 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4	0−1
World of Tanks	30−35 +450%	6−7 −450%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 5	6−7	0−1
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Valorant	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +13.3%	14−16 −13.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +13.3%	14−16 −13.3%
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Fortnite	4−5	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	4−5	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	2−3	0−1
Valorant	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

This is how RX Vega 5 and HD 8410G compete in popular games:

RX Vega 5 is 375% faster in 1080p

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

in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 5 is 575% faster.
in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 8410G is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 5 is ahead in 31 test (86%)
HD 8410G is ahead in 1 test (3%)
there's a draw in 4 tests (11%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.59	1.12
Recency	7 January 2020	23 May 2013
Chip lithography	7 nm	32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	35 Watt

RX Vega 5 has a 309.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 357.1% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 5 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8410G in performance tests.

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