AMD Radeon R5 M255 vs Intel HD Graphics 4400

Buy
VS
Buy
Price now no data
Games supported 53%
AMD Radeon R5 M255
Radeon R5 M255
Buy
  • Interface PCIe 3.0 x8
  • Core clock speed 940
  • Max video memory 4096 MB
  • Memory type DDR3
  • Memory clock speed 1000
  • Maximum resolution
Intel HD Graphics 4400
HD Graphics 4400
Buy
  • Interface PCIe 1.0 x16
  • Core clock speed 200
  • Max video memory System Shared
  • Memory type System Shared
  • Memory clock speed System Shared
  • Maximum resolution
Price now 425$
Games supported 53%

General info

Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.

Place in performance rating896892
Place by popularityno data82
Value for moneyno data0.03
ArchitectureGCN (2011−2017)Gen. 7.5 Haswell (2012−2013)
GPU code nameTopaz Pro / SunHaswell GT2
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 May 2014 (8 years ago)5 June 2013 (9 years ago)
Current priceno data$425
Value for money

To calculate the index we compare the characteristics of graphics cards against their prices.

no data
  • 0
  • 50
  • 100

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores32020
Compute units5no data
Core clock speed940 MHz200 MHz
Boost clock speed940 MHz1100 MHz
Number of transistors1,550 million392 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm22 nm
Thermal design power (TDP)no data20 Watt
Texture fill rate22.5622.00
Floating-point performance721.9 gflops46 gflops

Compatibility, dimensions and requirements

Information on Radeon R5 M255 and HD Graphics 4400 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Bus supportPCIe 3.0 x8no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 1.0 x16

Memory

Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 Bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth16 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Video outputs and ports

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Eyefinity+no data

Technologies

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

AppAcceleration+no data
Enduro-no data
HD3D+no data
PowerTune+no data
DualGraphics1no data
TrueAudio-no data
ZeroCore+no data
Switchable graphics1no data
Quick Syncno data+

API support

APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.

DirectXDirectX® 1112 (11_1)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.44.3
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
Vulkanno data1.1.80
Mantle+no data

Benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.


Overall score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R5 M255 1.32
HD Graphics 4400 1.33
+0.8%
  • Passmark
  • 3DMark Vantage Performance
  • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
  • 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
  • 3DMark Fire Strike Score
  • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
  • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04
  • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03
  • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02
  • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01
  • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04
  • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01
  • SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase
  • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01
  • SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01
  • SPECviewperf 12 - Maya
  • SPECviewperf 12 - Catia
  • SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks
  • SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX
  • SPECviewperf 12 - Creo
  • SPECviewperf 12 - Medical
  • SPECviewperf 12 - Energy

This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Benchmark coverage: 26%

R5 M255 517
HD Graphics 4400 522
+1%

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

R5 M255 5399
+50.7%
HD Graphics 4400 3583

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

R5 M255 1784
+143%
HD Graphics 4400 736

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R5 M255 6053
+22.2%
HD Graphics 4400 4953

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R5 M255 980
+86.7%
HD Graphics 4400 525

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 seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

R5 M255 1081
+89.9%
HD Graphics 4400 569

Benchmark coverage: 3%

R5 M255 6
+140%
HD Graphics 4400 3

Benchmark coverage: 3%

R5 M255 9
HD Graphics 4400 9
+6.9%

Benchmark coverage: 3%

R5 M255 3
+65%
HD Graphics 4400 2

Benchmark coverage: 3%

R5 M255 3
+127%
HD Graphics 4400 2

Benchmark coverage: 3%

R5 M255 5
HD Graphics 4400 8
+72.9%

Benchmark coverage: 3%

R5 M255 16
+136%
HD Graphics 4400 7

Benchmark coverage: 2%

R5 M255 14
+230%
HD Graphics 4400 4

Benchmark coverage: 2%

R5 M255 14.2
+14100%
HD Graphics 4400 0.1

Benchmark coverage: 2%

R5 M255 14
+230%
HD Graphics 4400 4

This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.

Benchmark coverage: 2%

R5 M255 6
+140%
HD Graphics 4400 3

Benchmark coverage: 2%

R5 M255 5
HD Graphics 4400 8
+72.9%

Benchmark coverage: 2%

R5 M255 9
HD Graphics 4400 9
+6.9%

Benchmark coverage: 2%

R5 M255 3
+65%
HD Graphics 4400 2

Benchmark coverage: 2%

R5 M255 16
+136%
HD Graphics 4400 7

Benchmark coverage: 2%

R5 M255 3
+127%
HD Graphics 4400 2

Benchmark coverage: 2%

R5 M255 14.2
+14100%
HD Graphics 4400 0.1

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p21
+75%
12
−75%
Full HD14
+40%
10
−40%

Popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 6 no data
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4
+300%
1−2
−300%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance rating 1.32 1.33
Recency 1 May 2014 5 June 2013
Pipelines / CUDA cores 320 20
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm

Technical City couldn't decide between

AMD Radeon R5 M255
AMD Radeon R5 M255

and

Intel HD Graphics 4400
Intel HD Graphics 4400

The differences in performance seem too small.


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

Cast your vote

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


Competitors of Radeon R5 M255 by NVIDIA

The nearest Radeon R5 M255's NVIDIA equivalent is GeForce GT 435M, which is faster by 1% and higher by 1 position in our performance rating.

NVIDIA GeForce GT 435M GeForce GT 435M
Compare

Here are some closest NVIDIA rivals to Radeon R5 M255:

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User rating

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


1.7 37 ratings

Rate AMD Radeon R5 M255 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 600 ratings

Rate Intel HD Graphics 4400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

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