GeForce FX 5100 vs HD Graphics 530

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 530 with GeForce FX 5100, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 530
2015
64 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4, 15 Watt
2.60
+12900%

HD Graphics 530 outperforms FX 5100 by a whopping 12900% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8201492
Place by popularity88not in top-100
Power efficiency11.88no data
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code nameSkylake GT2NV34 A1
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)6 March 2003 (21 year 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 cores192no data
Core clock speed350 MHz200 MHz
Boost clock speed950 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million45 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Wattno data
Texture fill rate22.800.8
Floating-point processing power0.3648 TFLOPSno data
ROPs34
TMUs244

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 BusAGP 8x
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4DDR
Maximum RAM amount64 GB64 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared166 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data2.656 GB/s
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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent1x VGA, 1x S-Video

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)9.0a
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.61.5 (2.1)
OpenCL3.0N/A
Vulkan+N/A

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 530 2.60
+12900%
FX 5100 0.02

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 530 1001
+14200%
FX 5100 7

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 HD13-0−1
4K7-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 13 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.60 0.02
Recency 1 September 2015 6 March 2003
Maximum RAM amount 64 GB 64 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 150 nm

HD Graphics 530 has a 12900% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 102300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 971.4% more advanced lithography process.

The HD Graphics 530 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5100 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 530 is a notebook card while GeForce FX 5100 is a desktop 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 530
HD Graphics 530
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5100
GeForce FX 5100

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.


3.1 1520 votes

Rate HD Graphics 530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 6 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5100 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.