HD Graphics 2500 vs GeForce GTS 160M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 160M with HD Graphics 2500, including specs and performance data.
GTS 160M outperforms HD Graphics 2500 by a whopping 149% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1014 | 1267 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.10 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Generation 7.0 (2012−2013) |
| GPU code name | G94 | Ivy Bridge GT1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 March 2009 (17 years ago) | 1 April 2012 (14 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 64 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | 392 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 19.20 | 6.900 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.192 TFLOPS | 0.1104 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 288 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 1 |
| TMUs | 32 | 6 |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| SLI options | 2-way | - |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | 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 | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 51 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | VGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.1 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.80 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 18−20 | 8
−55.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
| Fortnite | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+26.7%
|
30−33 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+192%
|
12 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
| Fortnite | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+26.7%
|
30−33 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+26.7%
|
30−33 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8 |
| Valorant | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| Valorant | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7 |
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 2−3 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 2−3 |
This is how GTS 160M and HD Graphics 2500 compete in popular games:
- GTS 160M is 125% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTS 160M is 1200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTS 160M performs better in 29 tests (91%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.62 | 0.65 |
| Recency | 3 March 2009 | 1 April 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 22 nm |
GTS 160M has a 149% higher aggregate performance score.
HD Graphics 2500, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 66% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTS 160M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2500 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 160M is a notebook graphics card while HD Graphics 2500 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
