GeForce GT 520M vs HD Graphics 2500

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 2500 with GeForce GT 520M, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 2500
2012
0.69

GT 520M outperforms HD Graphics 2500 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11861171
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiencyno data4.24
ArchitectureGeneration 7.0 (2012−2013)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameIvy Bridge GT1GF108
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date1 April 2012 (12 years ago)5 January 2011 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$59.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores4848
Core clock speed650 MHz600 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHzno data
Number of transistors392 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown12 Watt
Texture fill rate6.9004.800
Floating-point processing power0.1104 TFLOPS0.1152 TFLOPS
ROPs14
TMUs68

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
WidthIGPno data
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 SharedDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data12.8 GB/s
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 outputsPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (11_0)12 API
Shader Model5.05.1
OpenGL4.04.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.80N/A
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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.

HD Graphics 2500 0.69
GT 520M 0.74
+7.2%

  • Other tests
    • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
    • 3DMark Vantage Performance

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.

HD Graphics 2500 351
GT 520M 502
+43.2%

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.

HD Graphics 2500 1931
GT 520M 2280
+18.1%

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:

900p6−7
−16.7%
7
+16.7%
Full HD8
−50%
12
+50%
1200p6−7
−16.7%
7
+16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data5.00

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12
−66.7%
20−22
+66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how HD Graphics 2500 and GT 520M compete in popular games:

  • GT 520M is 17% faster in 900p
  • GT 520M is 50% faster in 1080p
  • GT 520M is 17% faster in 1200p

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 520M is 67% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 520M is ahead in 4 tests (11%)
  • there's a draw in 32 tests (89%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.69 0.74
Recency 1 April 2012 5 January 2011
Chip lithography 22 nm 40 nm

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

GT 520M, on the other hand, has a 7.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between HD Graphics 2500 and GeForce GT 520M.

Be aware that HD Graphics 2500 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 520M is a notebook 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
NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
GeForce GT 520M

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.


3.2
1457 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3
423 votes

Rate GeForce GT 520M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about HD Graphics 2500 or GeForce GT 520M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.