ATI Radeon E4690 vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Apple M1 8-Core GPU with Radeon E4690, including specs and performance data.
Apple M1 8-Core GPU outperforms ATI E4690 by a whopping 1285% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 353 | 1087 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.42 |
| Architecture | no data | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | no data | RV730 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 November 2020 (3 years ago) | 1 June 2009 (15 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 | 8 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 514 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 19.20 |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 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).
| Interface | no data | MXM-II |
| Width | no data | MXM Module |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 22.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 10.1 |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.0 |
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 | 28
+1300%
| 2−3
−1300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+1433%
|
6−7
−1433%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+1340%
|
5−6
−1340%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+1467%
|
3−4
−1467%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 75−80
+1420%
|
5−6
−1420%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+1433%
|
6−7
−1433%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+1340%
|
5−6
−1340%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+1467%
|
3−4
−1467%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 75−80
+1420%
|
5−6
−1420%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+1433%
|
6−7
−1433%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+1340%
|
5−6
−1340%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 75−80
+1420%
|
5−6
−1420%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1340%
|
5−6
−1340%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 85−90
+1350%
|
6−7
−1350%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 65−70
+1625%
|
4−5
−1625%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and ATI E4690 compete in popular games:
- Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 1300% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.54 | 1.05 |
| Recency | 10 November 2020 | 1 June 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 55 nm |
Apple M1 8-Core GPU has a 1284.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 1000% more advanced lithography process.
The Apple M1 8-Core GPU is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon E4690 in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M1 8-Core GPU is a notebook card while Radeon E4690 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
