Quadro FX 2500M vs Radeon HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics with Quadro FX 2500M, including specs and performance data.
HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics outperforms FX 2500M by a whopping 238% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 916 | 1223 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Power efficiency | no data | 0.85 |
Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | Curie (2003−2013) |
GPU code name | no data | G71 |
Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Release date | 8 February 2012 (13 years ago) | 29 September 2005 (19 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99.99 |
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 | 880 | 32 |
Core clock speed | 400 / 600 MHz | 500 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 500 MHz |
Number of transistors | no data | 278 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 90 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 45 Watt |
Texture fill rate | no data | 12.00 |
ROPs | no data | 16 |
TMUs | no data | 24 |
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 | no data | large |
Interface | no data | MXM-III |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 600 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | no data | 38.4 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 data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 11 | 9.0c (9_3) |
Shader Model | no data | 3.0 |
OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
OpenCL | no data | N/A |
Vulkan | - | N/A |
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 | 26
+271%
| 7−8
−271%
|
Cost per frame, $
1080p | no data | 14.28 |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
Atomic Heart | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Atomic Heart | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
Valorant | 35−40
+35.7%
|
27−30
−35.7%
|
Atomic Heart | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+118%
|
16−18
−118%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Dota 2 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
Valorant | 35−40
+35.7%
|
27−30
−35.7%
|
Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Dota 2 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
Valorant | 35−40
+35.7%
|
27−30
−35.7%
|
Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
Valorant | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Atomic Heart | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Valorant | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Dota 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics and FX 2500M compete in popular games:
- HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics is 271% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics is 1100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 1.89 | 0.56 |
Recency | 8 February 2012 | 29 September 2005 |
Chip lithography | 40 nm | 90 nm |
HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics has a 237.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 2500M 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.