HD Graphics 2500 vs Radeon R9 370

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 370 and HD Graphics 2500, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 370
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 110 Watt
11.33
+94.3%

R9 370 outperforms HD Graphics 2500 by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4741264
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.98no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Generation 7.0 (2012−2013)
GPU code nameTrinidadIvy Bridge GT1
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date5 May 2015 (11 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 cores128048
Core clock speed925 MHz650 MHz
Boost clock speed975 MHz1150 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million392 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm22 nm
Power consumption (TDP)110 Wattunknown
Texture fill rate78.006.900
Floating-point processing power2.496 TFLOPS0.1104 TFLOPS
ROPs321
TMUs806
L1 Cache384 KBno data
L2 Cache512 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 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length221 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1400 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth179.2 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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_1)11.1 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.0
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.80

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.

R9 370 11.33
+94.3%
HD Graphics 2500 0.65

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R9 370 5249
+93.9%
HD Graphics 2500 318

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 HD45
+82.2%
8
−82.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
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
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−33
+0%
30−33
+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 30−33
+0%
30−33
+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%
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+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 0−1 0−1

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 R9 370 and HD Graphics 2500 compete in popular games:

  • R9 370 is 82% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 31 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.33 0.65
Recency 5 May 2015 1 April 2012
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm

R9 370 has a 94% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 3 years.

HD Graphics 2500, on the other hand, has a 21% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R9 370 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2500 in performance tests.

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.


4 501 votes

Rate Radeon R9 370 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 1644 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 Radeon R9 370 or HD Graphics 2500, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.