OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon 890M review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,500VRAM:?Memory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):15 W

AMD Radeon 890M Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 15 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

6.7/10

Overall score

Score
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 77% of models
Score components

40%

5.5

Technical score

25%

8.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

5.5

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 77% of graphics cards
5.5

Value for money

Value for money
5.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

2.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
5.5

Technical score

Technical score
5.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components

44%

3.8

Performance

24%

4.1

Memory

12%

8.7

Power

11%

9.1

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 78%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 77% of models

80%

8.2

Average grade

20%

8.8

Popularity

Grades by review (15)
5 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 10 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 77%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,500
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon 890M

Based on 5 · 15

Reviewers like its gaming performance for integrated graphics, but criticise the memory limits, unsteady frame rates and high price.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon 890M

Technical score
Technical score
5.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 78% of models
Score components:

44%

3.8

Performance

24%

4.1

Memory

12%

8.7

Power

11%

9.1

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

9.2

Connectivity

5.5
Reviews score
8.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.5/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

70%

6.7

Overall score

30%

2.6

Price

5.5
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
3,600 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 3,600 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 91.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
1,777 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 1,777 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 79.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
8,167 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 8,167 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 88.3% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
4,182 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 4,182 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 86.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
5.94 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 5.94 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 84.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
?
Memory type
N/A
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
120 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 120 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 93.1% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
7,500 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 7,500 MHz, which is slower than that of 88.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
?
DisplayPort version
2.1
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 2.1, which is more advanced than on 66.4% of graphics cards and equal to 7.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
40 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 40 Gbps, which is faster than on 77.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
15 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 15 W, which is lower than that of 99.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
?
Recommended PSU wattage
?
Board power limit
15 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 15 W, which is lower than that of 99.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
15 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
?
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Radeon 890M vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 15.8% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,900 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,900 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 93% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (15 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    15 W vs 215 W
  • 4.29x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (7,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 20% smaller process node
    This graphics card uses a smaller manufacturing process than the average graphics card (4 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    4 nm vs 5 nm
  • 93.2% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (15 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    15 W vs 220 W
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 77% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (15)
    5 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 10 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 1.4a).
    2.1 vs 1.4a
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–² Better than 77% of models

    80%

    8.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (15)
    5 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 10 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 15.8% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,900 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,900 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 4.29x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (7,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 20% smaller process node
    This graphics card uses a smaller manufacturing process than the average graphics card (4 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    4 nm vs 5 nm
  • Newer DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports a newer DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 1.4a).
    2.1 vs 1.4a
  • 93% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (15 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    15 W vs 215 W
  • 93.2% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (15 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    15 W vs 220 W
  • 24 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    16 vs 40
  • 79.2% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (400 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    400 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 24 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    16 vs 40
  • 73.2% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (120 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    120 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • 60.5% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (7,500 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 29.5% lower sentiment score
    5.5 vs 7.8
  • 35.7% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon 890M has worse value for money than the average graphics card (5.46 vs 7.4).
    5.46 vs 7.41
  • 2.88x more expensive
    AMD Radeon 890M is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,500 vs £520).
    £1,500 vs £520
  • 24 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    16 vs 40
  • 79.2% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (400 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    400 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 24 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    16 vs 40
  • 50.9% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (185.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    185.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 73.7% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (5.9 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    5.94 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 42.5% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (92.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    92.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 112 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (32 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    32 vs 144
  • 63.9% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (8,167 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    8,167 points vs 22,638 points
  • 75.6% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (3,600 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    3,600 points vs 14,779 points
  • 80.6% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (1,777 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    1,777 points vs 9,148 points
  • 65.4% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (4,182 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    4,182 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 59.7% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (11.9 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    11.88 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 3,328 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,024 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,024 vs 4,352
  • 73.2% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (120 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    120 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 60.5% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (7,500 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 25 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (92 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    92 °C vs 67 °C
  • 5 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (100 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    100 °C vs 95 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
Budget-Builds Official
≈ estimated
05/06/2026
Hands-on review · mini PC performance, thermals and power tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon 890M is surprisingly capable in a mini PC, efficient and cool, and a good fit for home labs.
9.0
techknowlux - tech made simple
≈ estimated
30/11/2024
Hands-on review · integrated GPU gaming tests on a laptop
Verdict
AMD Radeon 890M is playable for AAA games at medium settings, though around 30 FPS is the realistic target.
7.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
24/11/2024
Hands-on review · mini PC iGPU vs GTX 1060 gaming
Verdict
AMD Radeon 890M is competitive for integrated graphics, but this mini PC is expensive and niche.
8.0
zWORMz Gaming
≈ estimated
10/11/2024
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and mini PC tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon 890M is the fastest gaming iGPU tested here, but the mini PC's price is hard to justify.
8.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
20/10/2024
Hands-on review · gaming tests in a mini PC
Verdict
AMD Radeon 890M has very strong integrated graphics, but it mainly suits buyers who need this compact form factor at this price.
9.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
07/10/2024
Hands-on test · Linux gaming performance tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon 890M is surprisingly strong for gaming on Linux, possibly outperforming Windows for now.
9.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
30/09/2024
Hands-on test · overclocked gaming and benchmark runs
Verdict
AMD Radeon 890M is a strong iGPU for many games at 1080p and 1440p.
8.0
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
09/08/2024
Hands-on review · iGPU gaming benchmarks across ten titles
Verdict
AMD Radeon 890M is surprisingly playable for integrated graphics, but you'll need low to medium settings.
7.0
Hubwood
≈ estimated
08/08/2024
Hands-on review · 31 games tested on a laptop
Verdict
AMD Radeon 890M offers decent performance for an integrated GPU, but memory bandwidth holds it back in this laptop.
8.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
30/07/2024
Hands-on review · game benchmarks vs Radeon 780M
Verdict
AMD Radeon 890M is clearly faster than the 780M in games, though the gain at high wattage is smaller than expected.
9.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
28/07/2024
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and laptop tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon 890M performs strongly in real-world gaming at low power, with more gains likely from future tuning and drivers.
9.0
Craptop To Desktop Reviews
≈ estimated
29/05/2026
Short test · Stalker 2 frame rates on integrated graphics
Verdict
AMD Radeon 890M overall gives great frame rates in Stalker 2 at medium and high presets.
More graded video reviews (1)
creator’s own scoreestimated by us

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
laptopmedia.com
≈ estimated
30/07/2024
Gaming comparison · Six-game test
Verdict
The Radeon 890M is a modest upgrade over the 780M, matching a 30 W RTX 2050 in several games but trailing it in Borderlands 3.
8.0
phoronix.com
≈ estimated
28/07/2024
Linux driver test · Setup and stability
Verdict
The Radeon 890M works well on Linux with recent kernels and drivers, offering better graphics speed and efficiency, but needs newer kernel, Mesa and firmware versions to run smoothly.
9.0
kitguru.net
≈ estimated
11/08/2024
Video review · Gaming at 1080p
Verdict
The Radeon 890M is a capable chip for gaming, running F1 23 and Forza Horizon 5 at High settings, though handheld power levels remain untested.
7.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
03/09/2024
Gaming test · Power limit comparison
Verdict
The Radeon 890M is a clear step up from the 780M, but it needs a power limit of about 51 W to reach its full gaming speed.
8.0
lesnumeriques.com
≈ estimated
30/07/2024
Laptop test · Gaming vs RTX 2050
Verdict
The Radeon 890M gets close to a GeForce RTX 2050 at Full HD, so Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 laptops can often skip a separate graphics chip.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon 890M

  • Leading integrated graphics performance, often outperforming older dedicated cards like the GTX 1650 in 1080p gaming.
  • Excellent power efficiency with significant performance-per-watt gains (up to 32%) over the previous generation.
  • Capable of handling modern AAA titles at 1080p with medium settings, especially when using FSR upscaling.
  • Includes a dedicated NPU for local AI tasks like image processing and real-time visual effects.
  • Supports high-end connectivity including up to four SUHD 8K displays and modern codecs like AV1.

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon 890M

  • Performance is heavily dependent on system-wide power limits (TDP), cooling quality, and memory bandwidth (RAM speed).
  • Still significantly slower than mid-range dedicated GPUs like the RTX 3050 or RX 7600M for heavy AAA workloads.
  • Lacks dedicated VRAM, meaning it must share and compete for system memory, which can lead to bottlenecks.
  • Performance advantages over the older 780M diminish at higher TDP levels (above 35W).
  • AMD driver issues have been noted by some users, though they are typically resolved via updates.

Verdict

The AMD Radeon 890M is a high-performance integrated GPU based on the RDNA 3.5 architecture, featuring 16 Compute Units (1024 shading units) and a boost clock speed of up to 2900 MHz. Built on a 4nm process for the Strix Point APU lineup, it delivers roughly 5.94 TFLOPS of FP32 floating-point performance and supports modern features like DirectX 12 Ultimate and hardware-accelerated ray tracing with 16 dedicated cores. Its main pros include impressive 1080p gaming performance that rivals entry-level dedicated cards like the GTX 1650, high energy efficiency with a scalable TDP as low as 15W, and support for high-speed LPDDR5X memory. However, its cons include a lack of dedicated VRAM, making performance highly dependent on system RAM speeds and power limits, and its inability to handle the most demanding AAA titles at ultra settings without significant frame rate drops.

Compare AMD Radeon 890M with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon 890M and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found