HD Graphics 400 vs GeForce GT 425M

Place in the ranking	1023	1082
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	4.08	12.99
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Generation 8.0 (2014−2015)
GPU code name	GF108	Braswell GT1
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	3 September 2010 (14 years ago)	1 April 2015 (9 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	96	96
Core clock speed	560 MHz	320 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	600 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	189 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	6 Watt
Texture fill rate	8.960	7.200
Floating-point processing power	0.215 TFLOPS	0.1152 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	2
TMUs	16	12

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
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	Ring Bus

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	DDR3	DDR3L
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	no 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 Connectors

No outputs

Portable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.3
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	+
CUDA	+	-

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	11 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Full HD	16 +33.3%	12−14 −33.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Dota 2	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Fortnite	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2	0−1
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 +25%	12−14 −25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
World of Tanks	27−30 +20.8%	24−27 −20.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Dota 2	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 +25%	12−14 −25%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
World of Tanks	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +29.2%	24−27 −29.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Valorant	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 +25%	12−14 −25%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +25%	12−14 −25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +25%	12−14 −25%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Dota 2	14−16 +25%	12−14 −25%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Valorant	1−2	0−1

This is how GT 425M and HD Graphics 400 compete in popular games:

GT 425M is 22% faster in 900p
GT 425M is 33% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.36	1.13
Recency	3 September 2010	1 April 2015
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	6 Watt

GT 425M has a 20.4% higher aggregate performance score.

HD Graphics 400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 283.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 425M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 400 in performance tests.

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