ATI Radeon IGP 320M vs HD Graphics 4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 4000 and Radeon IGP 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD Graphics 4000 outperforms ATI IGP 320M by a whopping 10100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1081 | 1535 |
| Place by popularity | 43 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.79 | no data |
| Architecture | Generation 7.0 (2012−2013) | Rage 7 (2001−2006) |
| GPU code name | Ivy Bridge GT2 | RS100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 5 October 2002 (22 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 | 128 | 2 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 160 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 160 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,200 million | 30 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 16.00 | 0.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.256 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 2 | 1 |
| TMUs | 16 | 1 |
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).
| Interface | Ring Bus | AGP 4x |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | System 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (11_0) | 7.0 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.0 | 1.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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 | 12 | -0−1 |
| Full HD | 11 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 17
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD Graphics 4000 is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD Graphics 4000 is ahead in 23 tests (88%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (12%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.02 | 0.01 |
| Recency | 14 May 2012 | 5 October 2002 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 180 nm |
HD Graphics 4000 has a 10100% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 718.2% more advanced lithography process.
The HD Graphics 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon IGP 320M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
