Quadro FX 880M vs HD Graphics 530

Place in the ranking	820	1208
Place by popularity	87	not in top-100
Power efficiency	11.88	1.14
Architecture	Generation 9.0 (2015−2016)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Skylake GT2	GT216
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	1 September 2015 (9 years ago)	7 January 2010 (14 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	192	48
Core clock speed	350 MHz	550 MHz
Boost clock speed	950 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm+	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	22.80	8.800
Floating-point processing power	0.3648 TFLOPS	0.1162 TFLOPS
ROPs	3	8
TMUs	24	16

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).

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Interface	Ring Bus	MXM-A (3.0)

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	64 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	25.28 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 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 compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.4	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	-	1.2

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
+348%

FX 880M 0.58

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
+349%

FX 880M 223

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

HD Graphics 530 6831
+159%

FX 880M 2639

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	13 −46.2%	19 +46.2%
4K	7 +600%	1−2 −600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Hitman 3	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +90.9%	10−12 −90.9%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	13 +117%	6−7 −117%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +26.7%	30−33 −26.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Hitman 3	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +90.9%	10−12 −90.9%
Metro Exodus	2−3	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 +30%	10−11 −30%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +26.7%	30−33 −26.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Hitman 3	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +90.9%	10−12 −90.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3 −233%	10−11 +233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +26.7%	30−33 −26.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+500%

1−2

−500%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

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%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+100%

3−4

−100%

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 +100%	1−2 −100%
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
+100%

2−3

−100%

This is how HD Graphics 530 and FX 880M compete in popular games:

FX 880M is 46% faster in 1080p
HD Graphics 530 is 600% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD Graphics 530 is 1400% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 880M is 233% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD Graphics 530 is ahead in 33 tests (94%)
FX 880M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.60	0.58
Recency	1 September 2015	7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount	64 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	35 Watt

HD Graphics 530 has a 348.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 133.3% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 530 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 530 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 880M is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.