Radeon Pro V620 vs UHD Graphics 610
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics 610 with Radeon Pro V620, including specs and performance data.
Pro V620 outperforms Graphics 610 by a whopping 2048% 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 | 975 | 137 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.90 | 9.56 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Coffee Lake GT1 | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 April 2018 (7 years ago) | 4 November 2021 (4 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 | 96 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+++ | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.80 | 633.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1728 TFLOPS | 20.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 128 |
| TMUs | 12 | 288 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 1.1 MB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 128 MB |
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 | Ring Bus | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2 |
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.
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 | 8
−2025%
| 170−180
+2025%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−1900%
|
120−130
+1900%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−2043%
|
150−160
+2043%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−2000%
|
210−220
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−1900%
|
120−130
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1991%
|
230−240
+1991%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1927%
|
750−800
+1927%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−1927%
|
750−800
+1927%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
| Dota 2 | 12
−1983%
|
250−260
+1983%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−2043%
|
150−160
+2043%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−2000%
|
210−220
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−1900%
|
120−130
+1900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1991%
|
230−240
+1991%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1927%
|
750−800
+1927%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
| Dota 2 | 11
−1991%
|
230−240
+1991%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−2000%
|
210−220
+2000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−1900%
|
120−130
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−1991%
|
230−240
+1991%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−2025%
|
170−180
+2025%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−1927%
|
750−800
+1927%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−2043%
|
150−160
+2043%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−1983%
|
250−260
+1983%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−1844%
|
350−400
+1844%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−2000%
|
210−220
+2000%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−2043%
|
300−310
+2043%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−2011%
|
190−200
+2011%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
This is how UHD Graphics 610 and Pro V620 compete in popular games:
- Pro V620 is 2025% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.74 | 37.38 |
| Recency | 3 April 2018 | 4 November 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 300 Watt |
UHD Graphics 610 has 1900% lower power consumption.
Pro V620, on the other hand, has a 2048.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro V620 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 610 in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics 610 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro V620 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
