UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) vs Radeon HD 8510G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8510G and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) outperforms HD 8510G by a considerable 42% 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 | 1181 | 1073 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.95 | 9.68 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Gen. 11 (2021) |
| GPU code name | Devastator | Gen. 11 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 May 2013 (12 years ago) | 11 January 2021 (4 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 | 384 | 24 |
| Core clock speed | 554 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 720 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 4.8 - 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.28 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.553 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | no data |
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 | 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | no data |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | no data |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | no data |
| Shared memory | + | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | no data |
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 | 11.2 (11_0) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| 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 | 5−6
−60%
| 8
+60%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−10%
|
30−35
+10%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18
−27.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12
−16.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−10%
|
30−35
+10%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
11
−27.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−10%
|
30−35
+10%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 3−4 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how HD 8510G and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) is 60% 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 8510G is 28% faster.
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8510G performs better in 3 tests (7%)
- UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) performs better in 28 tests (67%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (26%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.89 | 1.26 |
| Recency | 23 May 2013 | 11 January 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 4 Watt |
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) has a 41.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 220% more advanced lithography process, and 775% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8510G 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.
