Arc A380 vs HD Graphics

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics and Arc A380, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD Graphics
2012
35 Watt
0.78

Arc A380 outperforms HD Graphics by a whopping 1981% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1160341
Place by popularity68not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data44.63
Power efficiency1.5314.86
ArchitectureGeneration 7.0 (2012−2013)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameIvy Bridge GT1DG2-128
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 April 2012 (12 years ago)14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores481024
Core clock speed650 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHz2050 MHz
Number of transistors392 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate6.300131.2
Floating-point processing power0.1008 TFLOPS4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs132
TMUs664
Tensor Coresno data128
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data222 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared6 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared96 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1937 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data186.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.6
OpenGL4.04.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.801.3
DLSS-+

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.

HD Graphics 0.78
Arc A380 16.23
+1981%

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 299
Arc A380 6252
+1991%

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.

HD Graphics 300
Arc A380 10174
+3291%

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 HD2−3
−2350%
49
+2350%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.04

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 65
+0%
65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 47
+0%
47
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 41
+0%
41
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 48
+0%
48
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 37
+0%
37
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 33
+0%
33
+0%
Far Cry 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 76
+0%
76
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 32
+0%
32
+0%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 31
+0%
31
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 29
+0%
29
+0%
Far Cry 5 57
+0%
57
+0%
Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 72
+0%
72
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 33
+0%
33
+0%
Metro Exodus 40
+0%
40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 66
+0%
66
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27
+0%
27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
+0%
26
+0%
Far Cry 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 57
+0%
57
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how HD Graphics and Arc A380 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A380 is 2350% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.78 16.23
Recency 1 April 2012 14 June 2022
Chip lithography 22 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 75 Watt

HD Graphics has 114.3% lower power consumption.

Arc A380, on the other hand, has a 1980.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 266.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A380 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics in performance tests.

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
HD Graphics
Intel Arc A380
Arc A380

Other comparisons

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.


2.3 2279 votes

Rate HD Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 874 votes

Rate Arc A380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about HD Graphics or Arc A380, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.