ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs RX Vega 56

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking2001605
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation18.17no data
Power efficiency11.40no data
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameVega 10RS200
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date14 August 2017 (8 years ago)5 October 2002 (23 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 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 cores35842
Core clock speed1156 MHz183 MHz
Boost clock speed1471 MHz180 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million30 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Wattno data
Texture fill rate329.50.37
Floating-point processing power10.54 TFLOPSno data
ROPs642
TMUs2242
L1 Cache896 KBno data
L2 Cache4 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 3.0 x16AGP 4x
Length267 mmno data
Width2-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 typeHBM2System Shared
Maximum RAM amount8 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width2048 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

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, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)7.0
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.61.4
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.1.125N/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 Vega 56 12976
+648700%
Samples: 3633
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 HD115no data
1440p77no data
4K50no data

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.47no data
1440p5.18no data
4K7.98no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 170−180 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 80−85 no data

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 151 no data
Counter-Strike 2 170−180 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75 0−1
Far Cry 5 98 no data
Fortnite 150 no data
Forza Horizon 4 141
+6950%
2−3
−6950%
Forza Horizon 5 100−105 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 153
+2450%
6−7
−2450%
Valorant 190−200
+757%
21−24
−757%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 140 no data
Counter-Strike 2 170−180 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+2978%
9−10
−2978%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75 0−1
Dota 2 130−140
+1843%
7−8
−1843%
Far Cry 5 93 no data
Fortnite 139 no data
Forza Horizon 4 134
+6600%
2−3
−6600%
Forza Horizon 5 100−105 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 94 no data
Metro Exodus 70 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 137
+2183%
6−7
−2183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 124
+3000%
4−5
−3000%
Valorant 190−200
+757%
21−24
−757%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 131 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75 0−1
Dota 2 130−140
+1843%
7−8
−1843%
Far Cry 5 89 no data
Forza Horizon 4 109
+5350%
2−3
−5350%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120
+1900%
6−7
−1900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 74
+1750%
4−5
−1750%
Valorant 190−200
+757%
21−24
−757%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 108 no data

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+3600%
2−3
−3600%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 60−65 no data
Metro Exodus 42 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 no data
Valorant 230−240 no data

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 99 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35 no data
Far Cry 5 74 no data
Forza Horizon 4 88 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+5400%
1−2
−5400%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 74 no data

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 30−35 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 50
+257%
14−16
−257%
Metro Exodus 27 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44 no data
Valorant 190−200 0−1

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55 no data
Counter-Strike 2 30−35 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 no data
Dota 2 95−100 no data
Far Cry 5 39 no data
Forza Horizon 4 59 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 44
+4300%
1−2
−4300%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 37
+3600%
1−2
−3600%

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 56 is 6950% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, RX Vega 56 surpassed ATI IGP 340M in all 19 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Recency 14 August 2017 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 14 nm 180 nm

RX Vega 56 has an age advantage of 14 years, and a 1186% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 56 and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 56 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.


4.2 1022 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 56 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 Vega 56 or Radeon IGP 340M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.