Radeon HD 4650 vs HD Graphics 510

Place in performance ranking	966	1155
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Value for money	0.04	no data
Architecture	Gen. 9 Skylake (2015−2016)	TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code name	Skylake GT1	RV730
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	1 September 2015 (8 years ago)	10 September 2008 (15 years ago)
Current price	$476	$154

Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

HD Graphics 510 and ATI HD 4650 have a nearly equal value for money.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	12	320
Core clock speed	300 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	950 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	514 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	48 Watt
Texture fill rate	11.40	19.20
Floating-point performance	182.4 gflops	384.0 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on HD Graphics 510 and Radeon HD 4650 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x1	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	193 mm
Width	no data	1-slot

Memory

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	LPDDR3/DDR4	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	64/128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1400 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	22.4 GB/s
Shared memory	+	no data

Video outputs and ports

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

No outputs

2x DVI, 1x S-Video

Technologies

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

Quick Sync

no data

API support

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.4	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	2.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.97	N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 1.37
+125%

ATI HD 4650 0.61

HD Graphics 510 outperforms Radeon HD 4650 by 125% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

HD Graphics 510 625
+164%

ATI HD 4650 237

HD Graphics 510 outperforms Radeon HD 4650 by 164% in Passmark.

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
+300%

1−2

−300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	2−3	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	2−3	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2	0−1
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +167%	3−4 −167%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%

Advantages and disadvantages

Performance score	1.37	0.61
Recency	1 September 2015	10 September 2008
Maximum RAM amount	32 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	48 Watt