HD Graphics 400 vs Quadro M2200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M2200 with HD Graphics 400, including specs and performance data.
M2200 outperforms HD Graphics 400 by a whopping 880% 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 | 470 | 1126 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.13 | 13.22 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) |
| GPU code name | GM206 | Braswell GT1 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 1 April 2015 (10 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 | 1024 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 695 MHz | 320 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1036 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,940 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 6 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 66.30 | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.122 TFLOPS | 0.1152 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 2 |
| TMUs | 64 | 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | Ring Bus |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | DDR3L |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1377 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 88 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | + |
| CUDA | 5.2 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 43
+975%
| 4−5
−975%
|
| 4K | 14
+1300%
| 1−2
−1300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+1020%
|
5−6
−1020%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| God of War | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+1020%
|
5−6
−1020%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+933%
|
6−7
−933%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
| God of War | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+978%
|
9−10
−978%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+1020%
|
5−6
−1020%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+1000%
|
14−16
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+943%
|
7−8
−943%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Fortnite | 60−65
+933%
|
6−7
−933%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
| God of War | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+1200%
|
3−4
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+978%
|
9−10
−978%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+943%
|
7−8
−943%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| God of War | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+1133%
|
3−4
−1133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+978%
|
9−10
−978%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 60−65
+933%
|
6−7
−933%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+888%
|
8−9
−888%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+1000%
|
5−6
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1030%
|
10−11
−1030%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| God of War | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+1000%
|
5−6
−1000%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+1167%
|
3−4
−1167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| God of War | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
This is how Quadro M2200 and HD Graphics 400 compete in popular games:
- Quadro M2200 is 975% faster in 1080p
- Quadro M2200 is 1300% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.19 | 1.04 |
| Recency | 11 January 2017 | 1 April 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 6 Watt |
Quadro M2200 has a 879.8% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
HD Graphics 400, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 816.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 400 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M2200 is a mobile workstation graphics card while HD Graphics 400 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.
