Radeon HD 6520G + HD 7450M Dual Graphics vs RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)

Place in the ranking	660	1018
Place by popularity	38	not in top-100
Power efficiency	20.62	no data
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	Terascale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	Vega Raven Ridge	no data
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	26 October 2017 (7 years ago)	8 February 2012 (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	512	480
Core clock speed	300 MHz	400 / 700 MHz
Boost clock speed	1200 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	9,800 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	57.60	no data
Floating-point processing power	1.843 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	8	no data
TMUs	32	no data

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	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	no data
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	no data
Memory bus width	System Shared	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1800 MHz
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 data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11
Shader Model	6.4	no data
OpenGL	4.6	no data
OpenCL	2.1	no data
Vulkan	1.2	-

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 4.51
+232%

HD 6520G + HD 7450M Dual Graphics 1.36

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 3557
+254%

HD 6520G + HD 7450M Dual Graphics 1006

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 10294
+204%

HD 6520G + HD 7450M Dual Graphics 3384

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 +260%	5−6 −260%
4K	8 +300%	2−3 −300%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9
+125%

4−5

−125%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	15 +150%	6−7 −150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10 +233%	3−4 −233%
Battlefield 5	18 +260%	5−6 −260%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +125%	4−5 −125%
Far Cry 5	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Far Cry New Dawn	18 +500%	3−4 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	58 +2800%	2−3 −2800%
Hitman 3	9 +50%	6−7 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +114%	14−16 −114%
Metro Exodus	22 +267%	6−7 −267%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16 +700%	2−3 −700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	19 +138%	8−9 −138%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65 +97%	30−35 −97%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30 +400%	6−7 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Battlefield 5	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10 +150%	4−5 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 +50%	4−5 −50%
Far Cry 5	10 +900%	1−2 −900%
Far Cry New Dawn	13 +333%	3−4 −333%
Forza Horizon 4	52 +2500%	2−3 −2500%
Hitman 3	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +114%	14−16 −114%
Metro Exodus	17 +240%	5−6 −240%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10 +400%	2−3 −400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +100%	8−9 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	31 +182%	10−12 −182%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55 +66.7%	30−35 −66.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7 +75%	4−5 −75%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +25%	4−5 −25%
Far Cry 5	7 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	23 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Hitman 3	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	15 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +75%	8−9 −75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8 −37.5%	10−12 +37.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +36.4%	30−35 −36.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10
+400%

2−3

−400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Hitman 3	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +367%	6−7 −367%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+100%

4−5

−100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4	0−1
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4 +300%	1−2 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	9 +350%	2−3 −350%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and HD 6520G + HD 7450M Dual Graphics compete in popular games:

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 260% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 300% faster in 4K

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 2800% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 6520G + HD 7450M Dual Graphics is 38% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is ahead in 47 tests (98%)
HD 6520G + HD 7450M Dual Graphics is ahead in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.51	1.36
Recency	26 October 2017	8 February 2012
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has a 231.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6520G + HD 7450M Dual Graphics in performance tests.

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