HD Graphics 2500 vs Radeon PRO WX 2100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with HD Graphics 2500, including specs and performance data.

PRO WX 2100
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
4.78
+593%

PRO WX 2100 outperforms HD Graphics 2500 by a whopping 593% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking6431175
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.01no data
Power efficiency9.36no data
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Generation 7.0 (2012−2013)
GPU code nameLexaIvy Bridge GT1
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date4 June 2017 (7 years ago)1 April 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores51248
Core clock speed925 MHz650 MHz
Boost clock speed1219 MHz1150 MHz
Number of transistors2,200 million392 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm22 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Wattunknown
Texture fill rate39.016.900
Floating-point processing power1.248 TFLOPS0.1104 TFLOPS
ROPs161
TMUs326

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 1.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1500 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth48 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_0)11.1 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.0
OpenGL4.64.0
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.80

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 HD45−50
+543%
7
−543%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.31no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Battlefield 5 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+650%
4−5
−650%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+182%
10−12
−182%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+50%
30−33
−50%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Battlefield 5 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+650%
4−5
−650%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+182%
10−12
−182%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+50%
30−33
−50%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+650%
4−5
−650%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+182%
10−12
−182%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+50%
30−33
−50%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Hitman 3 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+1400%
2−3
−1400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

This is how PRO WX 2100 and HD Graphics 2500 compete in popular games:

  • PRO WX 2100 is 543% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the PRO WX 2100 is 1400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, PRO WX 2100 surpassed HD Graphics 2500 in all 35 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.78 0.69
Recency 4 June 2017 1 April 2012
Chip lithography 14 nm 22 nm

PRO WX 2100 has a 592.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO WX 2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2500 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation graphics card while HD Graphics 2500 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon PRO WX 2100
Radeon PRO WX 2100
Intel HD Graphics 2500
HD Graphics 2500

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 50 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 2100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 1406 votes

Rate HD Graphics 2500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.