Radeon 620 vs R5 (Carrizo)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Carrizo) and Radeon 620, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
620 outperforms R5 (Carrizo) by a substantial 30% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 930 | 855 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.60 | 3.29 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Carrizo | Polaris 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 June 2015 (9 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 | no data | 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-35 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 24.58 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| 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 | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 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 data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 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.
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
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−10.8%
|
40−45
+10.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−25%
|
45−50
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−20%
|
24−27
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−10.8%
|
40−45
+10.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−20%
|
24−27
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−10.8%
|
40−45
+10.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−33.3%
|
16−18
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
−72.7%
|
18−20
+72.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 620 is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 620 is ahead in 52 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.84 | 2.40 |
| Recency | 4 June 2015 | 13 May 2019 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 50 Watt |
R5 (Carrizo) has 316.7% lower power consumption.
Radeon 620, on the other hand, has a 30.4% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 3 years.
The Radeon 620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Carrizo) in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
