HD Graphics 2500 vs Radeon PRO WX 2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with HD Graphics 2500, including specs and performance data.
PRO WX 2100 outperforms HD Graphics 2500 by a whopping 599% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 651 | 1187 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.77 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.44 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Generation 7.0 (2012−2013) |
| GPU code name | Lexa | Ivy Bridge GT1 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 1 April 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | 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 | 512 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1219 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 392 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 39.01 | 6.900 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.248 TFLOPS | 0.1104 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 1 |
| TMUs | 32 | 6 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 48 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | 1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.0 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.80 |
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 HD | 55−60
+588%
| 8
−588%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.71 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+100%
|
27−30
−100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+558%
|
12
−558%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+225%
|
12−14
−225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+100%
|
27−30
−100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+225%
|
12−14
−225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+100%
|
27−30
−100%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+614%
|
7−8
−614%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how PRO WX 2100 and HD Graphics 2500 compete in popular games:
- PRO WX 2100 is 588% 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 PRO WX 2100 is 1600% 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 | 4.82 | 0.69 |
| Recency | 4 June 2017 | 1 April 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 22 nm |
PRO WX 2100 has a 598.6% 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
