Radeon HD 7620G vs Apple M1 8-Core GPU
Aggregate performance score
We've compared M1 8-Core GPU and Radeon HD 7620G, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Apple M1 8-Core GPU outperforms HD 7620G by a whopping 1357% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 386 | 1130 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.58 |
| Architecture | no data | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) |
| GPU code name | no data | Devastator |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 November 2020 (4 years ago) | 15 May 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 | 8 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1278 MHz | 360 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 497 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,303 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 11.93 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.3817 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
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 | no data | IGP |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | no data | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| 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 | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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
−32.1%
| 37
+32.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1767%
|
3−4
−1767%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+980%
|
5−6
−980%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+258%
|
30−35
−258%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1767%
|
3−4
−1767%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
+683%
|
21−24
−683%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+507%
|
14−16
−507%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+980%
|
5−6
−980%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+1533%
|
3−4
−1533%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+580%
|
5−6
−580%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+258%
|
30−35
−258%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+1767%
|
3−4
−1767%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+1250%
|
2−3
−1250%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+507%
|
14−16
−507%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+980%
|
5−6
−980%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+580%
|
5−6
−580%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+258%
|
30−35
−258%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 70−75 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+2325%
|
4−5
−2325%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+2080%
|
5−6
−2080%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+1422%
|
9−10
−1422%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+60%
|
14−16
−60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+1280%
|
5−6
−1280%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+1433%
|
3−4
−1433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how Apple M1 8-Core GPU and HD 7620G compete in popular games:
- HD 7620G is 32% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1440p resolution and the Epic Preset, the Apple M1 8-Core GPU is 2700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Apple M1 8-Core GPU is ahead in 37 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.70 | 0.94 |
| Recency | 10 November 2020 | 15 May 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 32 nm |
Apple M1 8-Core GPU has a 1357.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.
The M1 8-Core GPU is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7620G 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.
