Radeon R7 370 vs RX Vega M GH

Place in the ranking	316	407
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	6.46
Power efficiency	12.53	7.81
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	Polaris 22	Trinidad
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Design	no data	reference
Release date	1 February 2018 (6 years ago)	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149

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	1536	1024
Core clock speed	1063 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1190 MHz	975 MHz
Number of transistors	5,000 million	2,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	110 Watt
Texture fill rate	114.2	62.40
Floating-point processing power	3.656 TFLOPS	1.997 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	32
TMUs	96	64

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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	no data	PCIe 3.0
Interface	IGP	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	152 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1 x 6-pin

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	HBM2	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	1024 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	975 MHz
Memory bandwidth	204.8 GB/s	179.2 GB/s
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 outputs	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	-	+
Number of Eyefinity displays	no data	6
HDMI	-	+
DisplayPort support	-	+

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration	-	+
CrossFire	-	+
FreeSync	-	+
TrueAudio	-	+
VCE	-	+
DDMA audio	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	DirectX® 12
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	2.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	+
Mantle	-	+

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 M GH 17.07
+45.9%

R7 370 11.70

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 M GH 6584
+46%

R7 370 4511

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 M GH 14302
+67.9%

R7 370 8519

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 M GH 10248
+71.9%

R7 370 5961

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 M GH 59162
+48.6%

R7 370 39809

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 M GH 357446
+10.6%

R7 370 323114

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	59 +25.5%	47 −25.5%
1440p	36 −41.7%	51 +41.7%
4K	28 +55.6%	18 −55.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

39
+117%

18−20

−117%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	44 +63%	27−30 −63%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27−30 +55.6%	18−20 −55.6%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +51.4%	35−40 −51.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	36 +50%	24−27 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	30 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +48.1%	27−30 −48.1%
Far Cry New Dawn	52 +62.5%	30−35 −62.5%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +38.5%	75−80 −38.5%
Hitman 3	30−35 +50%	21−24 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +37.1%	60−65 −37.1%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +52.6%	35−40 −52.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	39 +21.9%	30−35 −21.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	83 +118%	35−40 −118%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +23.5%	65−70 −23.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +40.7%	27−30 −40.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27−30 +55.6%	18−20 −55.6%
Battlefield 5	33 −12.1%	35−40 +12.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	32 +33.3%	24−27 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	23 +27.8%	18−20 −27.8%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +48.1%	27−30 −48.1%
Far Cry New Dawn	41 +28.1%	30−35 −28.1%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +38.5%	75−80 −38.5%
Hitman 3	30−35 +50%	21−24 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +37.1%	60−65 −37.1%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +52.6%	35−40 −52.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	48 +50%	30−35 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	68 +78.9%	35−40 −78.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 −128%	89 +128%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +23.5%	65−70 −23.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21 −28.6%	27−30 +28.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	27−30 +55.6%	18−20 −55.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21 −14.3%	24−27 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	23 +27.8%	18−20 −27.8%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +48.1%	27−30 −48.1%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +38.5%	75−80 −38.5%
Hitman 3	30−35 +50%	21−24 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	56 −10.7%	60−65 +10.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	57 +50%	35−40 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	34 +54.5%	22 −54.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	80−85 +23.5%	65−70 −23.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

−14.3%

30−35
+14.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	39 +69.6%	21−24 −69.6%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +44.4%	18−20 −44.4%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18 +41.7%	12−14 −41.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	13 +8.3%	12−14 −8.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4 −50%	6−7 +50%
Far Cry 5	20−22 +53.8%	12−14 −53.8%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +64.3%	55−60 −64.3%
Hitman 3	20−22 +33.3%	14−16 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	41 +70.8%	24−27 −70.8%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +63.2%	18−20 −63.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +83.3%	18−20 −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +58.3%	12−14 −58.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +41.1%	70−75 −41.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30
+47.4%

18−20

−47.4%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	18 +63.6%	10−12 −63.6%
Far Cry New Dawn	14 +75%	8−9 −75%
Hitman 3	12−14 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +61.1%	50−55 −61.1%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +70%	10−11 −70%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +70%	10−11 −70%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +53.3%	14−16 −53.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +100%	9−10 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16
+36.4%

10−12

−36.4%

This is how RX Vega M GH and R7 370 compete in popular games:

RX Vega M GH is 26% faster in 1080p
R7 370 is 42% faster in 1440p
RX Vega M GH is 56% faster in 4K

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

in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega M GH is 118% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R7 370 is 128% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega M GH is ahead in 65 tests (90%)
R7 370 is ahead in 7 tests (10%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	17.07	11.70
Recency	1 February 2018	18 June 2015
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	110 Watt

RX Vega M GH has a 45.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 10% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega M GH is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 370 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GH is a notebook card while Radeon R7 370 is a desktop one.

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