HD Graphics 500 vs Quadro FX 880M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 880M with HD Graphics 500, including specs and performance data.
HD Graphics 500 outperforms FX 880M by a substantial 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1219 | 1162 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.14 | 8.92 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | Apollo Lake GT1 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 1 September 2015 (9 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 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.800 | 7.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1162 TFLOPS | 0.1248 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 2 |
| TMUs | 16 | 12 |
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) | 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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| 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
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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| 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.
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.
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
+100%
| 10
−100%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6
−83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1
+0%
|
1
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how FX 880M and HD Graphics 500 compete in popular games:
- FX 880M is 100% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 880M is 120% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD Graphics 500 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FX 880M is ahead in 2 tests (6%)
- HD Graphics 500 is ahead in 17 tests (47%)
- there's a draw in 17 tests (47%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.58 | 0.78 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 1 September 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 10 Watt |
HD Graphics 500 has a 34.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.
The HD Graphics 500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 880M is a mobile workstation card while HD Graphics 500 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
