ATI Radeon X1600 XT vs HD Graphics 405
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 405 with Radeon X1600 XT, including specs and performance data.
HD Graphics 405 outperforms ATI X1600 XT by a whopping 147% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1165 | 1333 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.51 | 0.49 |
| Architecture | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) | R500 (2005−2007) |
| GPU code name | Braswell GT1 | RV530 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 April 2015 (9 years ago) | 1 October 2007 (17 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 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 590 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 600 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 157 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 42 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 9.600 | 2.360 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1536 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 2 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 | 4 |
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 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 690 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 22.08 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/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 HD | 15
+150%
| 6−7
−150%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| World of Tanks | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| World of Tanks | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
This is how HD Graphics 405 and ATI X1600 XT compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics 405 is 150% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.74 | 0.30 |
| Recency | 1 April 2015 | 1 October 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 6 Watt | 42 Watt |
HD Graphics 405 has a 146.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 542.9% more advanced lithography process, and 600% lower power consumption.
The HD Graphics 405 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1600 XT in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 405 is a notebook card while Radeon X1600 XT is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
