GeForce GT 625M vs Radeon RX Vega M GL
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GL and GeForce GT 625M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
M GL outperforms 625M by a whopping 705% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 501 | 1104 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 11.04 | 5.94 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 22 | GF117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 February 2018 (7 years ago) | 1 October 2012 (13 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 | 1280 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 931 MHz | Up to 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1011 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 80.88 | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.588 TFLOPS | 0.24 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 80 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 128 KB |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 1024 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | Up to 14.4 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium
| Fortnite | 55−60
+2750%
|
2−3
−2750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+414%
|
27−30
−414%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+331%
|
16−18
−331%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+2750%
|
2−3
−2750%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+257%
|
7−8
−257%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+331%
|
16−18
−331%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+257%
|
7−8
−257%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+2750%
|
2−3
−2750%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega M GL is 2750% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega M GL performs better in 14 tests (30%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (70%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.34 | 1.16 |
| Recency | 1 February 2018 | 1 October 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 15 Watt |
RX Vega M GL has a 705.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
GT 625M, on the other hand, has 333.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega M GL is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 625M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
