Quadro NVS 510M vs HD Graphics 2500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 2500 with Quadro NVS 510M, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 2500
2012
0.69
+11.3%

HD Graphics 2500 outperforms NVS 510M by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11771202
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data1.22
ArchitectureGeneration 7.0 (2012−2013)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameIvy Bridge GT1G71
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date1 April 2012 (12 years ago)21 August 2006 (18 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 cores48no data
Core clock speed650 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHzno data
Number of transistors392 million278 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown35 Watt
Texture fill rate6.90010.80
Floating-point processing power0.1104 TFLOPSno data
ROPs116
TMUs624

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 1.0 x16
WidthIGPno data

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 SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared256 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared600 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data19.2 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 outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (11_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.03.0
OpenGL4.02.1
OpenCL1.2N/A
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
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Fortnite 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
World of Tanks 12
+20%
10−11
−20%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
World of Tanks 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+18.5%
27−30
−18.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Valorant 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

This is how HD Graphics 2500 and NVS 510M compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 2500 is 14% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.69 0.62
Recency 1 April 2012 21 August 2006
Chip lithography 22 nm 90 nm

HD Graphics 2500 has a 11.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 309.1% more advanced lithography process.

The HD Graphics 2500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 510M in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 2500 is a desktop card while Quadro NVS 510M is a mobile workstation one.


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 Quadro NVS 510M
Quadro NVS 510M

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 1440 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 3 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 510M 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.