Radeon HD 7770M vs UHD Graphics 620

Place in the ranking	805	725
Place by popularity	24	not in top-100
Power efficiency	12.41	7.47
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code name	Kaby Lake GT2	Chelsea
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 September 2017 (7 years ago)	24 April 2012 (12 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	192	512
Core clock speed	300 MHz	675 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	1,500 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm++	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	32 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.00	21.60
Floating-point processing power	0.384 TFLOPS	0.6912 TFLOPS
ROPs	3	16
TMUs	24	32

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
Interface	Ring Bus	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	LPDDR3/DDR4	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	64 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

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 compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	3.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.3	1.2.131

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.

UHD Graphics 620 2.67

HD 7770M 3.43
+28.5%

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.

UHD Graphics 620 1744

HD 7770M 2110
+21%

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.

UHD Graphics 620 7330

HD 7770M 10468
+42.8%

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	13 −23.1%	16−18 +23.1%
1440p	13 −23.1%	16−18 +23.1%
4K	8 −25%	10−12 +25%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

+0%

6−7

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8 −25%	10−11 +25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	2−3
Battlefield 5	8 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Far Cry New Dawn	10 +0%	10−11 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	38 +90%	20−22 −90%
Hitman 3	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40 +60%	24−27 −60%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9 +0%	9−10 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	15 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30 −36.7%	40−45 +36.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	2−3
Battlefield 5	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%
Forza Horizon 4	36 +80%	20−22 −80%
Hitman 3	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	34 +36%	24−27 −36%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −50%	9−10 +50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 −27.3%	14−16 +27.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14 −7.1%	14−16 +7.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −7.9%	40−45 +7.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	2−3
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −53.8%	20−22 +53.8%
Hitman 3	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5 −400%	24−27 +400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +0%	14−16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3 −400%	14−16 +400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −7.9%	40−45 +7.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−50%

9−10
+50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 −31.3%	21−24 +31.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

−16.7%

7−8
+16.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how UHD Graphics 620 and HD 7770M compete in popular games:

HD 7770M is 23% faster in 1080p
HD 7770M is 23% faster in 1440p
HD 7770M is 25% faster in 4K

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics 620 is 90% faster.
in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 7770M is 400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

UHD Graphics 620 is ahead in 6 tests (10%)
HD 7770M is ahead in 42 tests (71%)
there's a draw in 11 tests (19%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.67	3.43
Recency	1 September 2017	24 April 2012
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	32 Watt

UHD Graphics 620 has an age advantage of 5 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 113.3% lower power consumption.

HD 7770M, on the other hand, has a 28.5% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon HD 7770M is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 620 in performance tests.

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