GeForce 320M vs HD Graphics 2500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

HD Graphics 2500
2012
0.68
+25.9%

HD Graphics 2500 outperforms GeForce 320M by a significant 26% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking11371181
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGen. 7 Ivy Bridge (2011−2012)GT2xx (2009−2012)
GPU code nameIvy Bridge GT1MCP89
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 April 2012 (12 years ago)1 April 2010 (14 years ago)
Current price$521 $408

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

HD Graphics 2500 and GeForce 320M have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores632
Core clock speed650 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHzno data
Number of transistors392 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown23 Watt
Texture fill rate6.9007.200
Floating-point performance13.8 gflopsno data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on HD Graphics 2500 and GeForce 320M 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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16

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 SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus width64/128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
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

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.04.1
OpenGL4.03.3
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.1.80N/A

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.

HD Graphics 2500 0.68
+25.9%
GeForce 320M 0.54

HD Graphics 2500 outperforms GeForce 320M by 26% based on our aggregated benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

HD Graphics 2500 1931
+4.2%
GeForce 320M 1852

HD Graphics 2500 outperforms GeForce 320M by 4% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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 HD7
−85.7%
13
+85.7%

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 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how HD Graphics 2500 and GeForce 320M compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 320M is 86% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD Graphics 2500 is 33% faster than the GeForce 320M.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 2500 is ahead in 7 tests (23%)
  • there's a draw in 24 tests (77%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.68 0.54
Recency 1 April 2012 1 April 2010
Chip lithography 22 nm 40 nm

The HD Graphics 2500 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M 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.


Intel HD Graphics 2500
HD Graphics 2500
NVIDIA GeForce 320M
GeForce 320M

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.


3.2 1154 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 50 votes

Rate GeForce 320M 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.