Intel UHD Graphics 617 vs AMD Radeon 520
Comparative analysis of Intel UHD Graphics 617 and AMD Radeon 520 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark.
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel UHD Graphics 617
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- Around 2% higher boost clock speed: 1050 MHz vs 1030 MHz
- Around 22% higher texture fill rate: 25.20 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 3.3x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 50 Watt
- Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1313 vs 1182
- Around 11% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1313 vs 1182
- Around 18% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1461 vs 1242
- Around 18% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1461 vs 1242
- Around 17% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 240 vs 206
- Around 4% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 893 vs 857
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 7 November 2018 vs 18 April 2017 |
Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz vs 1030 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 25.20 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 50 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1313 vs 1182 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1313 vs 1182 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1461 vs 1242 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1461 vs 1242 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 240 vs 206 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 893 vs 857 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon 520
- 3.4x more core clock speed: 1030 MHz vs 300 MHz
- 13.3x more pipelines: 320 vs 24
- 8x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 26304 vs 3295
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3351 vs 1633
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3351 vs 1633
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1030 MHz vs 300 MHz |
Pipelines | 320 vs 24 |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 26304 vs 3295 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3351 vs 1633 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3351 vs 1633 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 617
GPU 2: AMD Radeon 520
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
Name | Intel UHD Graphics 617 | AMD Radeon 520 |
---|---|---|
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3295 | 26304 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1313 | 1182 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1313 | 1182 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1461 | 1242 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1461 | 1242 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1633 | 3351 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1633 | 3351 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 240 | 206 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 893 | 857 |
Compare specifications (specs)
Intel UHD Graphics 617 | AMD Radeon 520 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Generation 9.5 | GCN 1.0 |
Code name | Amber Lake GT2 | Oland |
Launch date | 7 November 2018 | 18 April 2017 |
Place in performance rating | 1219 | 1110 |
Type | Laptop | Desktop, Laptop |
Design | Radeon 500 Series | |
GCN generation | 1st Gen | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1030 MHz |
Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1030 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 100.8 GFLOPS | |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 806.4 GFLOPS | |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 403.2 GFLOPS | |
Pipelines | 24 | 320 |
Pixel fill rate | 3.150 GPixel/s | 4.10 GP/s |
Texture fill rate | 25.20 GTexel/s | 20.60 GTexel/s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 50 Watt |
Compute units | 5 | |
Floating-point performance | 660 GFLOPs | |
Render output units | 4 | |
Stream Processors | 320 | |
Texture Units | 20 | |
Transistor count | 1,040 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
DisplayPort support | ||
Dual-link DVI support | ||
HDMI | ||
VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 | 12 |
OpenCL | 2.1 | 2.0 |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Shader Model | 6.4 | |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 64 bit |
Memory type | DDR3L / LPDDR3 | GDDR5 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | |
Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | |
Memory clock speed | 4500 MHz | |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
4K H264 Decode | ||
4K H264 Encode | ||
AMD Graphics Core Next (GCN) Architecture | ||
AMD Radeon™ ReLive | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
DualGraphics | ||
Enduro | ||
H265/HEVC Decode | ||
H265/HEVC Encode | ||
HDMI 4K Support | ||
PowerTune | ||
TressFX | ||
Unified Video Decoder (UVD) | ||
Video Code Engine (VCE) |