Radeon 620 vs GeForce 8700M GT SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8700M GT SLI and Radeon 620, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
620 outperforms 8700M GT SLI by a whopping 204% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1159 | 855 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.93 | 3.29 |
| Architecture | G8x (2007) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | NB8E-SE | Polaris 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 September 2007 (17 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (5 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 | 64 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 578 Million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 24.58 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.7864 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| 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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 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 | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−120%
|
10−12
+120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−36.7%
|
40−45
+36.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−125%
|
45−50
+125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−84.6%
|
24−27
+84.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−120%
|
10−12
+120%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−36.7%
|
40−45
+36.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−84.6%
|
24−27
+84.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−120%
|
10−12
+120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−36.7%
|
40−45
+36.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 620 is 433% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 620 is ahead in 35 tests (63%)
- there's a draw in 21 test (38%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.79 | 2.40 |
| Recency | 18 September 2007 | 13 May 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 50 Watt |
Radeon 620 has a 203.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 16% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 620 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8700M GT SLI 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.
