Radeon PRO W6300 vs UHD Graphics 770
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics 770 with Radeon PRO W6300, including specs and performance data.
PRO W6300 outperforms UHD Graphics 770 by a whopping 134% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 590 | 370 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 28.24 | 39.69 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.2 (2022−2023) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Raptor Lake GT1 | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 September 2022 (2 years ago) | 19 January 2022 (3 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 | 256 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1512 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1650 MHz | 2040 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 10 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 26.40 | 97.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8448 TFLOPS | 3.133 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
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 x4 |
| Width | IGP | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 32 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2000 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 | Motherboard Dependent | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
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.
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 | 18
−122%
| 40−45
+122%
|
| 4K | 13
−131%
| 30−35
+131%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 15
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−125%
|
27−30
+125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 11
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−120%
|
55−60
+120%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−125%
|
27−30
+125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
−110%
|
21−24
+110%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
−129%
|
80−85
+129%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−131%
|
60−65
+131%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−127%
|
50−55
+127%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−124%
|
150−160
+124%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−120%
|
55−60
+120%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
−127%
|
220−230
+127%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−125%
|
27−30
+125%
|
| Dota 2 | 43
−133%
|
100−105
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
−119%
|
35−40
+119%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
−129%
|
80−85
+129%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−131%
|
60−65
+131%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−127%
|
50−55
+127%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18
−122%
|
40−45
+122%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−124%
|
150−160
+124%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
−120%
|
55−60
+120%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−125%
|
27−30
+125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−125%
|
27−30
+125%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
−125%
|
90−95
+125%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−131%
|
60−65
+131%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−127%
|
50−55
+127%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−124%
|
150−160
+124%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
−129%
|
80−85
+129%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
−127%
|
100−105
+127%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−130%
|
85−90
+130%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−131%
|
150−160
+131%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
−118%
|
24−27
+118%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−124%
|
65−70
+124%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
This is how UHD Graphics 770 and PRO W6300 compete in popular games:
- PRO W6300 is 122% faster in 1080p
- PRO W6300 is 131% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.03 | 14.13 |
| Recency | 27 September 2022 | 19 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 10 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 25 Watt |
UHD Graphics 770 has an age advantage of 8 months, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
PRO W6300, on the other hand, has a 134.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 66.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon PRO W6300 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 770 in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics 770 is a desktop card while Radeon PRO W6300 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.
