RTX A2000 vs Radeon R3 Graphics

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated137
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data42.83
Power efficiencyno data37.31
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameBeemaGA106
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date28 January 2015 (9 years ago)10 August 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$449

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 cores1283328
Core clock speed267 MHz562 MHz
Boost clock speed600 MHz1200 MHz
Number of transistors930 million12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate4.800124.8
Floating-point processing power0.1536 TFLOPS7.987 TFLOPS
ROPs448
TMUs8104
Tensor Coresno data104
Ray Tracing Coresno data26

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data167 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared6 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared192 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data288.0 GB/s

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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.36.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA-8.6

Pros & cons summary


Recency 28 January 2015 10 August 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 70 Watt

R3 Graphics has 366.7% lower power consumption.

RTX A2000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R3 Graphics and RTX A2000. We've got no test results to judge.


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 R3 Graphics
Radeon R3 Graphics
NVIDIA RTX A2000
RTX A2000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.9 683 votes

Rate Radeon R3 Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 548 votes

Rate RTX A2000 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.