Intel UHD Graphics 620 vs AMD Radeon R9 270X

Comparative analysis of Intel UHD Graphics 620 and AMD Radeon R9 270X 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: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the Intel UHD Graphics 620

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 10 month(s) later
• Around 10% higher boost clock speed: 1150 MHz vs 1050 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• 12x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 180 Watt
• 16x more maximum memory size: 32 GB vs 2 GB

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 270X

• 53.3x more pipelines: 1280 vs 24
• 4.7x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 4869 vs 1042
• 2.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 613 vs 241
• 2.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 63.87 vs 27.062
• 4.8x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1314.72 vs 273.504
• 3.6x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 6.354 vs 1.777
• 4.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 85.21 vs 19.939
• 9.9x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 315.412 vs 31.881
• 5.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 8068 vs 1397
• 4.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3706 vs 878
• Around 50% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3350 vs 2227
• 5.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 8068 vs 1397
• 4.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3706 vs 878
• Around 50% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3350 vs 2227
• 28.6x better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 1772 vs 62

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 620
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 270X

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	1042 4869
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	241 613
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	27.062 63.87
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	273.504 1314.72
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.777 6.354
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	19.939 85.21
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	31.881 315.412
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1397 8068
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	878 3706
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2227 3350
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1397 8068
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	878 3706
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2227 3350
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	62 1772

Compare specifications (specs)