RTX A5000 Mobile vs HD Graphics 505
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 505 with RTX A5000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX A5000 Mobile outperforms HD Graphics 505 by a whopping 4467% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1195 | 127 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 11.04 | 20.16 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Apollo Lake GT1.5 | GA104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 September 2016 (9 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (5 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 | 144 | 6144 |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 650 MHz | 1575 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 17,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 11.70 | 302.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1872 TFLOPS | 19.35 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 96 |
| TMUs | 18 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 192 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 6 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 4 MB |
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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 448.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |
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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Time Spy Graphics
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 | 9
−1089%
| 107
+1089%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−6800%
| 69
+6800%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−4800%
| 49
+4800%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4550%
|
90−95
+4550%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4550%
|
90−95
+4550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−9200%
|
93
+9200%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 170−180 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2450%
|
150−160
+2450%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 120−130 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1838%
|
150−160
+1838%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−667%
|
230−240
+667%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−1113%
|
270−280
+1113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4550%
|
90−95
+4550%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−843%
|
132
+843%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−8900%
|
90
+8900%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 170−180 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2450%
|
150−160
+2450%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 120−130 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−7900%
|
80
+7900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1838%
|
150−160
+1838%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2400%
|
150
+2400%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−667%
|
230−240
+667%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4550%
|
90−95
+4550%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−786%
|
124
+786%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−8400%
|
85
+8400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2450%
|
150−160
+2450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1838%
|
150−160
+1838%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1400%
|
90
+1400%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−667%
|
230−240
+667%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 170−180 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−2425%
|
100−110
+2425%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−5480%
|
270−280
+5480%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1844%
|
170−180
+1844%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 45−50 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 79 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−5600%
|
110−120
+5600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−3700%
|
75−80
+3700%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−10500%
|
100−110
+10500%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−443%
|
76
+443%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−5950%
|
240−250
+5950%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2650%
|
55−60
+2650%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2500%
|
50−55
+2500%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
This is how HD Graphics 505 and RTX A5000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX A5000 Mobile is 1089% faster in 1080p
- RTX A5000 Mobile is 6800% faster in 1440p
- RTX A5000 Mobile is 4800% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1440p resolution and the Epic Preset, the RTX A5000 Mobile is 10500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A5000 Mobile performs better in 32 tests (60%)
- there's a draw in 21 tests (40%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.86 | 39.28 |
| Recency | 1 September 2016 | 12 April 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 150 Watt |
HD Graphics 505 has 1400% lower power consumption.
RTX A5000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 4467% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A5000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 505 in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 505 is a notebook graphics card while RTX A5000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
