Radeon HD 7670M vs GeForce GT 730

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 730 with Radeon HD 7670M, including specs and performance data.

GT 730
2014
2 GB DDR3, 49 Watt
2.14
+78.3%

GT 730 outperforms HD 7670M by an impressive 78% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8731060
Place by popularity34not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.190.03
Power efficiency3.044.18
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameGF108Thames
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date18 June 2014 (10 years ago)17 February 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$59.99 $629.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

GT 730 has 533% better value for money than HD 7670M.

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 cores96480
Core clock speed700 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistors585 million716 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)49 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate11.2 GT/s14.40
Floating-point processing power0.2688 TFLOPS0.576 TFLOPS
ROPs416
TMUs1624

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s28.8 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGANo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.1-

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.

GT 730 2.14
+78.3%
HD 7670M 1.20

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

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 730 833
+78%
HD 7670M 468

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GT 730 1170
+42%
HD 7670M 824

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:

900p30−35
+76.5%
17
−76.5%
Full HD35−40
+75%
20
−75%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.71
+1738%
31.50
−1738%
  • GT 730 has 1738% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Atomic Heart 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 46
+0%
46
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how GT 730 and HD 7670M compete in popular games:

  • GT 730 is 76% faster in 900p
  • GT 730 is 75% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 48 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.14 1.20
Recency 18 June 2014 17 February 2012
Power consumption (TDP) 49 Watt 20 Watt

GT 730 has a 78.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

HD 7670M, on the other hand, has 145% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 730 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7670M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 730 is a desktop card while Radeon HD 7670M is a notebook one.

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 730
GeForce GT 730
AMD Radeon HD 7670M
Radeon HD 7670M

Other comparisons

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.


3.1
6384 votes

Rate GeForce GT 730 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3
385 votes

Rate Radeon HD 7670M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 730 or Radeon HD 7670M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.