HD Graphics 400 vs Radeon HD 7480D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7480D with HD Graphics 400, including specs and performance data.
HD Graphics 400 outperforms HD 7480D by an impressive 55% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1176 | 1089 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.77 | 12.91 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper Lite | Braswell GT1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 April 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $53 | 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 | 128 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 320 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 6 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 6.400 | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2048 TFLOPS | 0.1152 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 2 |
| TMUs | 8 | 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).
| Interface | IGP | Ring Bus |
| Width | IGP | 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 | System Shared | DDR3L |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 8 GB |
| 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 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 | 11
−45.5%
| 16−18
+45.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.82 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−37.9%
|
40−45
+37.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−37.9%
|
40−45
+37.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−50%
|
18−20
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−37.9%
|
40−45
+37.9%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
This is how HD 7480D and HD Graphics 400 compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics 400 is 45% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.73 | 1.13 |
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 1 April 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 6 Watt |
HD Graphics 400 has a 54.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 983.3% lower power consumption.
The HD Graphics 400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7480D in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7480D is a desktop card while HD Graphics 400 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
