Radeon Pro 570 vs HD Graphics 505
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 505 with Radeon Pro 570, including specs and performance data.
Pro 570 outperforms HD Graphics 505 by a whopping 1679% 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 | 1174 | 372 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 10.80 | 9.61 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Apollo Lake GT1.5 | Polaris 20 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 September 2016 (8 years ago) | 5 June 2017 (8 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 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 650 MHz | 1105 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 11.70 | 123.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1872 TFLOPS | 3.96 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 32 |
| TMUs | 18 | 112 |
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 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1695 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 217.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 | 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 | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.131 |
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:
| Full HD | 9
−1678%
| 160−170
+1678%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1567%
|
500−550
+1567%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−1639%
|
400−450
+1639%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1614%
|
240−250
+1614%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1567%
|
500−550
+1567%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1614%
|
240−250
+1614%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| God of War | 5−6
−1600%
|
85−90
+1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1650%
|
140−150
+1650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1567%
|
100−105
+1567%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1567%
|
500−550
+1567%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1678%
|
160−170
+1678%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1567%
|
50−55
+1567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1633%
|
260−270
+1633%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−1650%
|
70−75
+1650%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| God of War | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
This is how HD Graphics 505 and Pro 570 compete in popular games:
- Pro 570 is 1678% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.85 | 15.12 |
| Recency | 1 September 2016 | 5 June 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 120 Watt |
HD Graphics 505 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 1100% lower power consumption.
Pro 570, on the other hand, has a 1678.8% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 9 months.
The Radeon Pro 570 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 Radeon Pro 570 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.
