Quadro RTX 6000 vs HD Graphics 510

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 510 with Quadro RTX 6000, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 510
2015
32 GB LPDDR3/DDR4, 15 Watt
1.61

RTX 6000 outperforms HD Graphics 510 by a whopping 2916% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking95565
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data5.24
Power efficiency7.4312.93
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameSkylake GT1TU102
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)13 August 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$6,299

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 cores964608
Core clock speed300 MHz1440 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHz1770 MHz
Number of transistors189 million18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt260 Watt
Texture fill rate10.80509.8
Floating-point processing power0.1728 TFLOPS16.31 TFLOPS
ROPs396
TMUs12288
Tensor Coresno data576
Ray Tracing Coresno data72

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 3.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin + 1x 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 typeLPDDR3/DDR4GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount32 GB24 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared384 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data672.0 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, 1x USB Type-C

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_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.02.0
Vulkan1.31.2.131
CUDA-7.5

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 510 1.61
RTX 6000 48.56
+2916%

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 510 622
RTX 6000 18733
+2912%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−2900%
120−130
+2900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−2900%
180−190
+2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2900%
120−130
+2900%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−2900%
120−130
+2900%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−2900%
90−95
+2900%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2900%
90−95
+2900%
Hitman 3 6−7
−2900%
180−190
+2900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−2900%
450−500
+2900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−2900%
240−250
+2900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2779%
950−1000
+2779%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−2900%
180−190
+2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2900%
120−130
+2900%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−2900%
120−130
+2900%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−2900%
90−95
+2900%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2900%
90−95
+2900%
Hitman 3 6−7
−2900%
180−190
+2900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−2900%
450−500
+2900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−2900%
240−250
+2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−2627%
300−310
+2627%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2779%
950−1000
+2779%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−2900%
180−190
+2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2900%
120−130
+2900%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−2900%
120−130
+2900%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2900%
90−95
+2900%
Hitman 3 6−7
−2900%
180−190
+2900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−2900%
450−500
+2900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−2900%
240−250
+2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−2627%
300−310
+2627%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2779%
950−1000
+2779%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−2900%
60−65
+2900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Hitman 3 7−8
−2900%
210−220
+2900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−2900%
150−160
+2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
−2900%
210−220
+2900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−2900%
120−130
+2900%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−2900%
90−95
+2900%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.61 48.56
Recency 1 September 2015 13 August 2018
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 24 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 260 Watt

HD Graphics 510 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 1633.3% lower power consumption.

RTX 6000, on the other hand, has a 2916.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 510 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 510 is a desktop card while Quadro RTX 6000 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 510
HD Graphics 510
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000
Quadro RTX 6000

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.


3 368 votes

Rate HD Graphics 510 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 129 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 6000 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.