HD Graphics 2500 vs Quadro FX 380

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 380 with HD Graphics 2500, including specs and performance data.

FX 380
2009, $129
256 MB GDDR3, 34 Watt
0.49

HD Graphics 2500 outperforms FX 380 by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking13131260
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency1.11no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Generation 7.0 (2012−2013)
GPU code nameG96Ivy Bridge GT1
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date30 March 2009 (17 years ago)1 April 2012 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$129 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

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 cores1648
Core clock speed450 MHz650 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1150 MHz
Number of transistors314 million392 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm22 nm
Power consumption (TDP)34 Wattunknown
Texture fill rate3.6006.900
Floating-point processing power0.0352 TFLOPS0.1104 TFLOPS
ROPs81
TMUs86
L2 Cache32 KBno 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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length198 mmno data
Width1-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount256 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed700 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth22.4 GB/sno 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 Connectors2x DVINo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (11_0)
Shader Model4.05.0
OpenGL3.34.0
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.1.80
CUDA1.1-

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 HD6−7
−33.3%
8
+33.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p21.50no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Palworld 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Palworld 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12
+0%
12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
Palworld 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Palworld 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Palworld 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how FX 380 and HD Graphics 2500 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 2500 is 33% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 33 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.49 0.65
Recency 30 March 2009 1 April 2012
Chip lithography 65 nm 22 nm

HD Graphics 2500 has a 33% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 195% more advanced lithography process.

The HD Graphics 2500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 380 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 380 is a workstation 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.9 15 votes

Rate Quadro FX 380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 1643 votes

Rate HD Graphics 2500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 380 or HD Graphics 2500, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.