HD Graphics 500 vs GeForce GT 420M

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

GT 420M
2010
1024 MB (G)DDR3
1.05
+40%

GeForce GT 420M outperforms HD Graphics 500 by 40% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking10571117
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.030.08
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Gen. 9 Apollo Lake (2016−2017)
GPU code nameN11P-GEApollo Lake
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 September 2010 (13 years ago)1 September 2016 (7 years ago)
Current price$310 $414

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

HD Graphics 500 has 167% better value for money than GT 420M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores9612
CUDA cores96no data
Core clock speed500 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data700 MHz
Number of transistors585 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate6.0 billion/sec9.000
Floating-point performance192 gflops144.0 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GT 420M and HD Graphics 500 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x1

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(G)DDR3DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4
Maximum RAM amount1 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.1.97
CUDA+no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 420M 1.05
+40%
HD Graphics 500 0.75

GeForce GT 420M outperforms HD Graphics 500 by 40% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GT 420M 405
+35.5%
HD Graphics 500 299

GeForce GT 420M outperforms HD Graphics 500 by 35% in Passmark.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GT 420M 685
+42.1%
HD Graphics 500 482

GeForce GT 420M outperforms HD Graphics 500 by 42% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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:

900p12
+50%
8−9
−50%
Full HD17
+70%
10
−70%
1440p1−2
+0%
1
+0%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how GT 420M and HD Graphics 500 compete in popular games:

  • GT 420M is 50% faster than HD Graphics 500 in 900p
  • GT 420M is 70% faster than HD Graphics 500 in 1080p
  • HD Graphics 500 is 0% faster than GT 420M in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 420M is 100% faster than the HD Graphics 500.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 420M is ahead in 8 tests (32%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (68%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.05 0.75
Recency 3 September 2010 1 September 2016
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 10 Watt

The GeForce GT 420M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 500 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 420M
GeForce GT 420M
Intel HD Graphics 500
HD Graphics 500

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.8 115 votes

Rate GeForce GT 420M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 579 votes

Rate HD Graphics 500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.