HD Graphics 405 vs Radeon HD 6320
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6320 and HD Graphics 405, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD Graphics 405 outperforms HD 6320 by an impressive 95% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1278 | 1172 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.45 | 8.47 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) |
| GPU code name | Loveland | Braswell GT1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 August 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 April 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $554.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 80 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 508 MHz | 200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 600 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 450 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 6 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.064 | 9.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08128 TFLOPS | 0.1536 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 2 |
| TMUs | 8 | 16 |
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).
| Interface | IGP | 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 | System Shared | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | System Shared |
| 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 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
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 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 7−8
−114%
| 15
+114%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 79.28 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.4%
|
27−30
+7.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.4%
|
27−30
+7.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−7.4%
|
27−30
+7.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
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 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
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%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 6320 and HD Graphics 405 compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics 405 is 114% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the HD Graphics 405 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD Graphics 405 is ahead in 23 tests (68%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (32%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.38 | 0.74 |
| Recency | 15 August 2011 | 1 April 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 6 Watt |
HD Graphics 405 has a 94.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The HD Graphics 405 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6320 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
