HD Graphics 615 vs Quadro FX 4600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 4600 with HD Graphics 615, including specs and performance data.

FX 4600
2007
768 MB GDDR3, 134 Watt
1.11

HD Graphics 615 outperforms FX 4600 by an impressive 69% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1086916
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency0.5725.93
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameG80Kaby Lake GT2
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date5 March 2007 (17 years ago)30 August 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,999 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 cores96192
Core clock speed500 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data850 MHz
Number of transistors681 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm14 nm++
Power consumption (TDP)134 Watt5 Watt
Texture fill rate24.0020.40
Floating-point processing power0.2304 TFLOPS0.3264 TFLOPS
ROPs243
TMUs2424

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 x16Ring Bus
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR3DDR3L/LPDDR3
Maximum RAM amount768 MB16 GB
Memory bus width384 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed700 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth67.2 GB/sno 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+-

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 4600 1.11
HD Graphics 615 1.88
+69.4%

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 4600 425
HD Graphics 615 721
+69.6%

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 HD7−8
−85.7%
13
+85.7%
1440p18−21
−88.9%
34
+88.9%
4K4−5
−100%
8
+100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p285.57no data
1440p111.06no data
4K499.75no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8
+0%
8
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 7
+0%
7
+0%
Far Cry 5 11
+0%
11
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9
+0%
9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3
+0%
3
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10
+0%
10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
World of Tanks 22
+0%
22
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 14
+0%
14
+0%
Far Cry 5 6
+0%
6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12
+0%
12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
World of Tanks 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how FX 4600 and HD Graphics 615 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 615 is 86% faster in 1080p
  • HD Graphics 615 is 89% faster in 1440p
  • HD Graphics 615 is 100% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 47 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.11 1.88
Recency 5 March 2007 30 August 2016
Maximum RAM amount 768 MB 16 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 134 Watt 5 Watt

HD Graphics 615 has a 69.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 2033.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 542.9% more advanced lithography process, and 2580% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 615 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 4600 is a workstation card while HD Graphics 615 is a notebook 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.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 4600
Quadro FX 4600
Intel HD Graphics 615
HD Graphics 615

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.


3.8 13 votes

Rate Quadro FX 4600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 82 votes

Rate HD Graphics 615 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.