HD Graphics 400 vs Quadro P5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P5200 with HD Graphics 400, including specs and performance data.
P5200 outperforms HD Graphics 400 by a whopping 2680% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 180 | 1080 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.62 | 12.96 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Braswell GT1 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) | 1 April 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 | 2560 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1556 MHz | 320 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1746 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 6 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 279.4 | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.94 TFLOPS | 0.1152 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 2 |
| TMUs | 160 | 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-B (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 | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 230.4 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.
| Optimus | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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.
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 | 114
+2750%
| 4−5
−2750%
|
| 4K | 46
+4500%
| 1−2
−4500%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| Elden Ring | 100−110
+3433%
|
3−4
−3433%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+2933%
|
3−4
−2933%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+2780%
|
5−6
−2780%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+3850%
|
2−3
−3850%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+3025%
|
4−5
−3025%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+2933%
|
3−4
−2933%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+3367%
|
3−4
−3367%
|
| Elden Ring | 100−110
+3433%
|
3−4
−3433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+2800%
|
3−4
−2800%
|
| Fortnite | 140−150
+2840%
|
5−6
−2840%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+2780%
|
5−6
−2780%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+3333%
|
3−4
−3333%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+3850%
|
2−3
−3850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 216
+2986%
|
7−8
−2986%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 100−110
+3433%
|
3−4
−3433%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+3025%
|
4−5
−3025%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+2967%
|
9−10
−2967%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+2933%
|
3−4
−2933%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+3367%
|
3−4
−3367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+2800%
|
3−4
−2800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 140−150
+2780%
|
5−6
−2780%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 84
+2700%
|
3−4
−2700%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+3025%
|
4−5
−3025%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| Elden Ring | 55−60
+2850%
|
2−3
−2850%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2817%
|
6−7
−2817%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| World of Tanks | 200−210
+2786%
|
7−8
−2786%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+2950%
|
2−3
−2950%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+3167%
|
3−4
−3167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+2800%
|
3−4
−2800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+3400%
|
2−3
−3400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+2933%
|
3−4
−2933%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
| Elden Ring | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 93
+3000%
|
3−4
−3000%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+2800%
|
2−3
−2800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
This is how Quadro P5200 and HD Graphics 400 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P5200 is 2750% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P5200 is 4500% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.41 | 1.13 |
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 1 April 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 6 Watt |
Quadro P5200 has a 2679.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
HD Graphics 400, on the other hand, has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1566.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P5200 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 400 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P5200 is a mobile workstation card while HD Graphics 400 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
