Radeon R4 (Beema) vs GeForce GT 625M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 625M and Radeon R4 (Beema), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 625M
2012
2 GB DDR3, 15 Watt
1.24
+20.4%

GT 625M outperforms R4 (Beema) by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking10381098
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.76no data
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)GCN 1.1 (2014)
GPU code nameGF117Beema
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 October 2012 (12 years ago)29 April 2014 (10 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 cores96128
Core clock speedUp to 625 MHz800 MHz
Number of transistors585 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Wattno data
Texture fill rate10.00no data
Floating-point processing power0.24 TFLOPSno data
ROPs4no data
TMUs16no data

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data

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 typeDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHzno data
Memory bandwidthUp to 14.4 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Blu-Ray+-
Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.5no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

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.

GT 625M 1.24
+20.4%
R4 (Beema) 1.03

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.

GT 625M 478
+19.8%
R4 (Beema) 399

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.

GT 625M 921
+28.6%
R4 (Beema) 716

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 HD9−10
+12.5%
8
−12.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3.1%
30−35
−3.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3.1%
30−35
−3.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3.1%
30−35
−3.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how GT 625M and R4 (Beema) compete in popular games:

  • GT 625M is 13% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 625M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 625M is ahead in 23 tests (53%)
  • there's a draw in 20 tests (47%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.24 1.03
Recency 1 October 2012 29 April 2014

GT 625M has a 20.4% higher aggregate performance score.

R4 (Beema), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.

The GeForce GT 625M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R4 (Beema) in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 625M
GeForce GT 625M
AMD Radeon R4 (Beema)
Radeon R4 (Beema)

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8 31 vote

Rate GeForce GT 625M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 74 votes

Rate Radeon R4 (Beema) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.