HD Graphics 2500 vs GeForce GT 330M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 330M with HD Graphics 2500, including specs and performance data.
HD Graphics 2500 outperforms 330M by a significant 23% 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 | 1287 | 1250 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.74 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Generation 7.0 (2012−2013) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | Ivy Bridge GT1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 January 2010 (16 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 48 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 392 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 6.900 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.06528 TFLOPS | 0.1104 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 182 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 1 |
| TMUs | 16 | 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.28 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 | HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 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_1) | 11.1 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 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:
| 900p | 10
−20%
| 12−14
+20%
|
| Full HD | 18
+125%
| 8
−125%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3.7%
|
27−30
+3.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12
−41.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3.7%
|
27−30
+3.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3.7%
|
27−30
+3.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how GT 330M and HD Graphics 2500 compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics 2500 is 20% faster in 900p
- GT 330M is 125% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 330M is 42% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD Graphics 2500 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 330M performs better in 1 test (4%)
- HD Graphics 2500 performs better in 13 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (48%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.52 | 0.64 |
| Recency | 10 January 2010 | 1 April 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 22 nm |
HD Graphics 2500 has a 23% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 82% more advanced lithography process.
The HD Graphics 2500 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 330M 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.
