Radeon PRO W7700 vs HD Graphics 500

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 500 with Radeon PRO W7700, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 500
2015
8 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4, 10 Watt
0.77

PRO W7700 outperforms HD Graphics 500 by a whopping 6371% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking114561
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data55.87
Power efficiency8.8918.16
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameApollo Lake GT1Navi 32
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)13 November 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores963072
Core clock speed200 MHz1900 MHz
Boost clock speed650 MHz2600 MHz
Number of transistors189 million28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt190 Watt
Texture fill rate7.800499.2
Floating-point processing power0.1248 TFLOPS31.95 TFLOPS
ROPs296
TMUs12192
Ray Tracing Coresno data48

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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 8-pin

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 typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB16 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data576.0 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent4x DisplayPort 2.1

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.2
Vulkan1.31.3

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. 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 500 0.77
PRO W7700 49.83
+6371%

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.

HD Graphics 500 298
PRO W7700 19227
+6352%

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
−6150%
500−550
+6150%
1440p1
−5900%
60−65
+5900%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.00
1440pno data16.65

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−5900%
300−310
+5900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Hitman 3 5−6
−5900%
300−310
+5900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−6150%
750−800
+6150%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−5733%
350−400
+5733%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6352%
2000−2050
+6352%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−5900%
300−310
+5900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Hitman 3 5−6
−5900%
300−310
+5900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−6150%
750−800
+6150%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−5733%
350−400
+5733%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−5900%
600−650
+5900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6352%
2000−2050
+6352%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−5900%
300−310
+5900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%
Hitman 3 5−6
−5900%
300−310
+5900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−6150%
750−800
+6150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−5733%
350−400
+5733%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−5900%
600−650
+5900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6352%
2000−2050
+6352%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Hitman 3 7−8
−6329%
450−500
+6329%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−6150%
250−260
+6150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−6233%
190−200
+6233%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−5900%
60−65
+5900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%

This is how HD Graphics 500 and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:

  • PRO W7700 is 6150% faster in 1080p
  • PRO W7700 is 5900% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.77 49.83
Recency 1 September 2015 13 November 2023
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 190 Watt

HD Graphics 500 has 1800% lower power consumption.

PRO W7700, on the other hand, has a 6371.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 500 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 500 is a desktop card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a 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 500
HD Graphics 500
AMD Radeon PRO W7700
Radeon PRO W7700

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.


2.9 676 votes

Rate HD Graphics 500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.8 4 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7700 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.