ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs HD 6870

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6061536
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.96no data
Power efficiency2.62no data
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameBartsRS200
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date21 October 2010 (14 years ago)5 October 2002 (22 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$239 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores11202
Core clock speedno data183 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHz180 MHz
Number of transistors1,700 million30 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)151 Wattno data
Texture fill rate50.400.37
Floating-point processing power2.016 TFLOPSno data
ROPs322
TMUs562

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).

Bus supportPCIe 2.0 x16no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16AGP 4x
Length220 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1050 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth134.4 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 117.0
Shader Model5.0no data
OpenGL4.41.4
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan-N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

HD 6870 2210
+110400%
ATI IGP 340M 2

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:

900p61no data
Full HD63no data
1200p39no data

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.79no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20 no data
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14 no data
Metro Exodus 14−16 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Valorant 18−20 no data

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20 no data
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Dota 2 18−20 no data
Far Cry 5 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Fortnite 30−35 no data
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20 no data
Metro Exodus 14−16 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+350%
4−5
−350%
Valorant 18−20 no data
World of Tanks 189
+2263%
8−9
−2263%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20 no data
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Dota 2 18−20 no data
Far Cry 5 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Valorant 18−20 no data

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 6−7 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 no data
World of Tanks 40−45 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11 no data
Forza Horizon 5 8−9 no data
Metro Exodus 6−7 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Valorant 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Metro Exodus 2−3 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 no data
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Far Cry 5 6−7 no data
Fortnite 5−6 no data
Forza Horizon 4 6−7 no data
Forza Horizon 5 3−4 no data
Valorant 5−6 0−1

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

  • in World of Tanks, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6870 is 2263% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD 6870 is ahead in 27 tests (90%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (10%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 21 October 2010 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 40 nm 180 nm

HD 6870 has an age advantage of 8 years, and a 350% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 6870 and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon HD 6870 is a desktop card while Radeon IGP 340M is a notebook one.


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.


AMD Radeon HD 6870
Radeon HD 6870
ATI Radeon IGP 340M
Radeon IGP 340M

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.


3.8 371 vote

Rate Radeon HD 6870 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 340M 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.