ATI Radeon HD 4250 vs HD 6530M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6530M with Radeon HD 4250, including specs and performance data.
HD 6530M outperforms ATI HD 4250 by a whopping 306% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1044 | 1323 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.40 | 0.87 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | Capilano | RV620 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 26 November 2010 (14 years ago) | 25 February 2009 (15 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 | 40 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 594 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 627 million | 181 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 9.000 | 2.376 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.36 TFLOPS | 0.04752 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 20 | 4 |
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-II | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 396 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 6.336 GB/s |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+26.9%
|
24−27
−26.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+115%
|
12−14
−115%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+26.9%
|
24−27
−26.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+26.9%
|
24−27
−26.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Valorant | 4−5 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6530M is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6530M is ahead in 30 tests (91%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.26 | 0.31 |
| Recency | 26 November 2010 | 25 February 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 25 Watt |
HD 6530M has a 306.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.
ATI HD 4250, on the other hand, has 4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 6530M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4250 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6530M is a notebook card while Radeon HD 4250 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
