HD Graphics 620 vs Radeon HD 6950M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6950M with HD Graphics 620, including specs and performance data.
HD 6950M outperforms HD Graphics 620 by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 714 | 834 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 59 |
| Power efficiency | 5.09 | 11.52 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Blackcomb | Kaby Lake GT2 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (13 years ago) | 30 August 2016 (8 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 | 960 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,700 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm++ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 27.84 | 24.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.114 TFLOPS | 0.384 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 3 |
| TMUs | 48 | 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 | MXM-B (3.0) | Ring Bus |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 HD | 18−20
+38.5%
| 13
−38.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−25%
|
25
+25%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+25%
|
20−22
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+10.8%
|
35−40
−10.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+25%
|
20−22
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+10.8%
|
35−40
−10.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 24−27
+25%
|
20−22
−25%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+15.4%
|
12−14
−15.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+10.8%
|
35−40
−10.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how HD 6950M and HD Graphics 620 compete in popular games:
- HD 6950M is 38% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 6950M is 500% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD Graphics 620 is 25% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6950M is ahead in 50 tests (89%)
- HD Graphics 620 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.56 | 2.42 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 30 August 2016 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 32 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 15 Watt |
HD 6950M has a 47.1% higher aggregate performance score.
HD Graphics 620, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 6950M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 620 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6950M is a notebook card while HD Graphics 620 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
