HD Graphics 2500 vs Quadro FX 880M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 880M with HD Graphics 2500, including specs and performance data.
HD Graphics 2500 outperforms 880M by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1266 | 1236 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.20 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Generation 7.0 (2012−2013) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | Ivy Bridge GT1 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 1 April 2012 (13 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 | 48 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 392 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 8.800 | 6.900 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1162 TFLOPS | 0.1104 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 1 |
| TMUs | 16 | 6 |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | no data |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 790 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.28 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.80 |
| CUDA | 1.2 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 20
+150%
| 8
−150%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3.6%
|
27−30
+3.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12
−41.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3.6%
|
27−30
+3.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3.6%
|
27−30
+3.6%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how FX 880M and HD Graphics 2500 compete in popular games:
- FX 880M is 150% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the FX 880M is 42% faster.
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the HD Graphics 2500 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FX 880M performs better in 1 test (3%)
- HD Graphics 2500 performs better in 16 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (48%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.52 | 0.61 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 1 April 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 22 nm |
HD Graphics 2500 has a 17.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 81.8% more advanced lithography process.
The HD Graphics 2500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 880M is a mobile workstation graphics card while HD Graphics 2500 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
