HD Graphics 620 vs Radeon RX Vega 56

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 with HD Graphics 620, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
34.26
+1310%

RX Vega 56 outperforms HD Graphics 620 by a whopping 1310% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking151841
Place by popularitynot in top-10063
Cost-effectiveness evaluation24.54no data
Power efficiency11.1811.11
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameVega 10Kaby Lake GT2
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date14 August 2017 (7 years ago)30 August 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

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 cores3584192
Core clock speed1156 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed1471 MHz1000 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm++
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate329.524.00
Floating-point processing power10.54 TFLOPS0.384 TFLOPS
ROPs643
TMUs22424

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 3.0 x16Ring Bus
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinno data

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 typeHBM2DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4
Maximum RAM amount8 GB32 GB
Memory bus width2048 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/sno 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.1.125+

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 56 34.26
+1310%
HD Graphics 620 2.43

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 Vega 56 13200
+1312%
HD Graphics 620 935

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

RX Vega 56 29086
+1828%
HD Graphics 620 1509

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

RX Vega 56 54586
+841%
HD Graphics 620 5803

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 56 20759
+2123%
HD Graphics 620 934

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

RX Vega 56 125359
+1523%
HD Graphics 620 7725

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

RX Vega 56 412820
+422%
HD Graphics 620 79067

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

RX Vega 56 141
+994%
HD Graphics 620 13

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 HD114
+777%
13
−777%
1440p78
+1460%
5−6
−1460%
4K45
+1400%
3−4
−1400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.50no data
1440p5.12no data
4K8.87no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+1080%
5−6
−1080%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 77
+863%
8−9
−863%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+1375%
4−5
−1375%
Battlefield 5 164
+5367%
3−4
−5367%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75
+1067%
6−7
−1067%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+1080%
5−6
−1080%
Far Cry 5 115
+1817%
6
−1817%
Far Cry New Dawn 114
+1800%
6−7
−1800%
Forza Horizon 4 293
+1072%
25
−1072%
Hitman 3 70−75
+929%
7−8
−929%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+640%
20−22
−640%
Metro Exodus 144
+14300%
1−2
−14300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85
+1560%
5−6
−1560%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 184
+1214%
14
−1214%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+227%
35−40
−227%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 134
+1575%
8−9
−1575%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+1375%
4−5
−1375%
Battlefield 5 153
+5000%
3−4
−5000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75
+1067%
6−7
−1067%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+1080%
5−6
−1080%
Far Cry 5 92
+2200%
4−5
−2200%
Far Cry New Dawn 88
+1367%
6−7
−1367%
Forza Horizon 4 272
+2373%
10−12
−2373%
Hitman 3 70−75
+929%
7−8
−929%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+640%
20−22
−640%
Metro Exodus 119
+11800%
1−2
−11800%
Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85
+1560%
5−6
−1560%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 120−130
+1009%
10−12
−1009%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 70−75
+380%
15
−380%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+227%
35−40
−227%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 52
+550%
8−9
−550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+1375%
4−5
−1375%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 70−75
+1067%
6−7
−1067%
Cyberpunk 2077 55−60
+1080%
5−6
−1080%
Far Cry 5 69
+1625%
4−5
−1625%
Forza Horizon 4 109
+891%
10−12
−891%
Hitman 3 70−75
+929%
7−8
−929%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+640%
20−22
−640%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 120−130
+1009%
10−12
−1009%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 74
+469%
12−14
−469%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+227%
35−40
−227%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85
+1560%
5−6
−1560%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 98
+2350%
4−5
−2350%
Far Cry New Dawn 60
+1400%
4−5
−1400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 44
+2100%
2−3
−2100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+3900%
1−2
−3900%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Far Cry 5 46
+1433%
3−4
−1433%
Forza Horizon 4 268
+1389%
18−20
−1389%
Hitman 3 40−45
+514%
7−8
−514%
Horizon Zero Dawn 70−75
+943%
7−8
−943%
Metro Exodus 74
+1380%
5−6
−1380%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+1520%
5−6
−1520%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+2250%
2−3
−2250%
Watch Dogs: Legion 170−180
+1164%
14−16
−1164%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+1080%
5−6
−1080%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 46 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 32
+3100%
1−2
−3100%
Hitman 3 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 160−170
+1560%
10−11
−1560%
Metro Exodus 46
+1433%
3−4
−1433%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+1367%
3−4
−1367%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11 0−1
Far Cry 5 23
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Forza Horizon 4 59
+1375%
4−5
−1375%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+1433%
3−4
−1433%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%

This is how RX Vega 56 and HD Graphics 620 compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 56 is 777% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 56 is 1460% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega 56 is 1400% faster in 4K

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

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 56 is 14300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, RX Vega 56 surpassed HD Graphics 620 in all 56 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 34.26 2.43
Recency 14 August 2017 30 August 2016
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 32 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 15 Watt

RX Vega 56 has a 1309.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 11 months.

HD Graphics 620, on the other hand, has a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 1300% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 620 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 56 is a desktop card while HD Graphics 620 is a notebook one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon RX Vega 56
Radeon RX Vega 56
Intel HD Graphics 620
HD Graphics 620

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.3 791 vote

Rate Radeon RX Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 2683 votes

Rate HD Graphics 620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.