UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs vs Radeon HD 6510G2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6510G2 and UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Graphics G4 48EUs outperforms HD 6510G2 by a whopping 258% 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 | 1092 | 714 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.68 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
| GPU code name | no data | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 June 2011 (14 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (5 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 | 400 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1450 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 28 Watt |
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 |
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.
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12_1 |
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 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.
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 | 4−5
−300%
| 16
+300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−267%
|
11
+267%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1800%
|
19
+1800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−700%
|
16
+700%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−186%
|
20−22
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1400%
|
15
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−9.1%
|
36
+9.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16
+1500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+12%
|
25
−12%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−62.5%
|
26
+62.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−650%
|
15
+650%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−186%
|
20−22
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14
+1300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 10 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−114%
|
15
+114%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−72.7%
|
55−60
+72.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14
+1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−50%
|
24
+50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−186%
|
20−22
+186%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−72.7%
|
55−60
+72.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−313%
|
30−35
+313%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−175%
|
30−35
+175%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−1433%
|
45−50
+1433%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how HD 6510G2 and UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 300% 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 HD 6510G2 is 12% faster.
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 1800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6510G2 performs better in 1 test (2%)
- UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs performs better in 46 tests (79%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (19%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.19 | 4.26 |
| Recency | 14 June 2011 | 15 August 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs has a 258% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6510G2 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.
