Radeon HD 6620G vs R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Place in the ranking	796	1123
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	no data	1.75
Architecture	GCN (2012−2015)	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	Kaveri Spectre	Sumo
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	14 January 2014 (10 years ago)	7 December 2011 (12 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	384	400
Core clock speed	720 MHz	444 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	1,178 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	8.880
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.3552 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	8
TMUs	no data	20

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	no data	medium sized
Interface	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	no data	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	no data	System Shared
Memory bus width	no data	System Shared
Memory clock speed	no data	System Shared
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 compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (FL 12_0)	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	no data	5.0
OpenGL	no data	4.4
OpenCL	no data	1.2
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.

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 2.75
+213%

HD 6620G 0.88

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.

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 1988
+206%

HD 6620G 650

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.

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 7338
+200%

HD 6620G 2443

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

14
+7.7%

−7.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +250%	4−5 −250%
Hitman 3	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +75%	12−14 −75%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +22.6%	30−35 −22.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +250%	4−5 −250%
Hitman 3	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +75%	12−14 −75%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +22.6%	30−35 −22.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +250%	4−5 −250%
Hitman 3	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +75%	12−14 −75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +22.6%	30−35 −22.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+500%

1−2

−500%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+100%

3−4

−100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+100%

2−3

−100%

This is how R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and HD 6620G compete in popular games:

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 8% faster in 1080p

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

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is ahead in 37 tests (97%)
there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.75	0.88
Recency	14 January 2014	7 December 2011
Chip lithography	28 nm	32 nm

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 212.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6620G in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop card while Radeon HD 6620G is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.