Radeon 620 vs HD 7500G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7500G with Radeon 620, including specs and performance data.
620 outperforms HD 7500G by a whopping 190% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1139 | 845 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.26 | 3.21 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Devastator Lite | Polaris 24 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (5 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 | 256 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 327 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 424 MHz | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 6.784 | 24.58 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2171 TFLOPS | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 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).
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 GB/s |
| 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 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
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.
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−58.3%
|
18−20
+58.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−19.4%
|
35−40
+19.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−58.3%
|
18−20
+58.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−19.4%
|
35−40
+19.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−58.3%
|
18−20
+58.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−19.4%
|
35−40
+19.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 620 is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 620 is ahead in 33 tests (75%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (25%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.80 | 2.32 |
| Recency | 15 May 2012 | 13 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 17 Watt | 50 Watt |
HD 7500G has 194.1% lower power consumption.
Radeon 620, on the other hand, has a 190% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7500G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7500G is a desktop card while Radeon 620 is a notebook 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.
