Radeon HD 6450 vs HD Graphics 510
Aggregated performance score
HD Graphics 510 outperforms Radeon HD 6450 by a whopping 167% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 968 | 1187 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | no data |
| Architecture | Gen. 9 Skylake (2015−2016) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT1 | Caicos |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (8 years ago) | 7 April 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $55 |
| Current price | $476 | $166 (3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
HD Graphics 510 and HD 6450 have a nearly equal value for money.
Detailed specifications
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 | 160 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 370 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 11.40 | 5.000 |
| Floating-point performance | 182.4 gflops | 200.0 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on HD Graphics 510 and Radeon HD 6450 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.
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | LPDDR3/DDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 8.5-12.8 GB/x (DDR3) or 25.6-28.8 GB/s (GDDR5) |
| Shared memory | + | no data |
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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| Eyefinity | no data | 1 |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | no data | 4 |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| DisplayPort support | no data | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | - |
| CrossFire | no data | 1 |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| HD3D | no data | - |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| ZeroCore | no data | - |
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 11 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.97 | no data |
| Mantle | no data | - |
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 outperforms Radeon HD 6450 by 167% 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 outperforms Radeon HD 6450 by 216% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
HD Graphics 510 outperforms Radeon HD 6450 by 83% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| 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
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| 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
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| 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
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 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
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| 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
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.36 | 0.51 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 7 April 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 30 Watt |
The HD Graphics 510 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6450 in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 510 is a notebook card while Radeon HD 6450 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
