HD Graphics 4600 vs Quadro FX 2700M

Place in the ranking	1116	913
Place by popularity	not in top-100	70
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.02	no data
Power efficiency	1.02	6.41
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Generation 7.5 (2013)
GPU code name	G94	Haswell GT2
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	14 August 2008 (16 years ago)	27 May 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$99.95	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	48	160
Core clock speed	530 MHz	400 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1100 MHz
Number of transistors	505 million	392 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	22 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.72	22.00
Floating-point processing power	0.1272 TFLOPS	0.352 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	2
TMUs	24	20

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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-HE	Ring Bus

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	GDDR3	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	System Shared
Memory bus width	256 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	799 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	51.14 GB/s	no data
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

No outputs

Portable Device Dependent

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	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	3.3	4.3
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	+
CUDA	1.1	-

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.

FX 2700M 0.95

HD Graphics 4600 1.84
+93.7%

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.

FX 2700M 366

HD Graphics 4600 710
+94%

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.

FX 2700M 2799

HD Graphics 4600 5203
+85.9%

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:

900p	7−8 −100%	14 +100%
Full HD	5−6 −120%	11 +120%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

19.99

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−33.3%

4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	0−1	3−4
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Hitman 3	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −30.8%	16−18 +30.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −500%	6 +500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −12.9%	35−40 +12.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	0−1	3−4
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Hitman 3	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −30.8%	16−18 +30.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −30%	13 +30%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −12.9%	35−40 +12.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	0−1	3−4
Hitman 3	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −30.8%	16−18 +30.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −12.9%	35−40 +12.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

−300%

4−5
+300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	1−2
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−66.7%

5−6
+66.7%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

1−2

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	1−2
Far Cry 5	0−1	1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−50%

3−4
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

This is how FX 2700M and HD Graphics 4600 compete in popular games:

HD Graphics 4600 is 100% faster in 900p
HD Graphics 4600 is 120% faster in 1080p

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

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD Graphics 4600 is 500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD Graphics 4600 is ahead in 37 tests (80%)
there's a draw in 9 tests (20%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.95	1.84
Recency	14 August 2008	27 May 2013
Chip lithography	65 nm	22 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	45 Watt

HD Graphics 4600 has a 93.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 195.5% more advanced lithography process, and 44.4% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 4600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 2700M is a mobile workstation card while HD Graphics 4600 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.