GeForce GT 820M vs Radeon HD 6730M

Place in the ranking	1022	1004
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	2.68	6.59
Architecture	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Whistler	GF117
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	4 January 2011 (14 years ago)	27 November 2013 (11 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	480	96
Core clock speed	725 MHz	775 MHz
Number of transistors	716 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	17.40	12.40
Floating-point processing power	0.696 TFLOPS	0.2976 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	24	16

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	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16

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	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	14.4 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no 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 Connectors

No outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	11.2 (11_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.0	5.1
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	-	2.1

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:

900p	17 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
Full HD	23 −4.3%	24−27 +4.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Fortnite	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
World of Tanks	27−30 −3.4%	30−33 +3.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
World of Tanks	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Valorant	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how HD 6730M and GT 820M compete in popular games:

HD 6730M is 6% faster in 900p
GT 820M is 4% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.30	1.37
Recency	4 January 2011	27 November 2013
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	15 Watt

GT 820M has a 5.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 6730M and GeForce GT 820M.

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