FireStream 9370 vs HD Graphics 2500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 2500 with FireStream 9370, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 2500
2012
0.64

FireStream 9370 outperforms HD Graphics 2500 by a whopping 844% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1246635
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data2.06
ArchitectureGeneration 7.0 (2012−2013)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameIvy Bridge GT1Cypress
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date1 April 2012 (13 years ago)23 June 2010 (15 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 cores481600
Core clock speed650 MHz825 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHzno data
Number of transistors392 million2,154 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown225 Watt
Texture fill rate6.90066.00
Floating-point processing power0.1104 TFLOPS2.64 TFLOPS
ROPs132
TMUs680
L1 Cacheno data160 KB
L2 Cacheno data512 KB

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 1.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 8-pin

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1150 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data147.2 GB/s
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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DisplayPort

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (11_0)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model5.05.0
OpenGL4.04.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.80N/A

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 HD8
−838%
75−80
+838%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
Valorant 27−30
−829%
260−270
+829%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12
−817%
110−120
+817%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Dota 2 12−14
−817%
110−120
+817%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Valorant 27−30
−829%
260−270
+829%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Dota 2 12−14
−817%
110−120
+817%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−838%
75−80
+838%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−817%
55−60
+817%
Valorant 27−30
−829%
260−270
+829%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−829%
65−70
+829%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%
Hogwarts Legacy 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−829%
130−140
+829%
Valorant 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−800%
18−20
+800%

This is how HD Graphics 2500 and FireStream 9370 compete in popular games:

  • FireStream 9370 is 838% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.64 6.04
Recency 1 April 2012 23 June 2010
Chip lithography 22 nm 40 nm

HD Graphics 2500 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 81.8% more advanced lithography process.

FireStream 9370, on the other hand, has a 843.8% higher aggregate performance score.

The FireStream 9370 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2500 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 2500 is a desktop graphics card while FireStream 9370 is a workstation one.

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.


Intel HD Graphics 2500
HD Graphics 2500
AMD FireStream 9370
FireStream 9370

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.


3.1 1575 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 8 votes

Rate FireStream 9370 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about HD Graphics 2500 or FireStream 9370, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.