HD Graphics 4000 vs Radeon R7 250X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250X with HD Graphics 4000, including specs and performance data.

R7 250X
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 80 Watt
5.90
+400%

R7 250X outperforms HD Graphics 4000 by a whopping 400% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5931068
Place by popularitynot in top-10045
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.63no data
Power efficiency5.091.81
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Generation 7.0 (2012−2013)
GPU code nameCape VerdeIvy Bridge GT2
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (10 years ago)14 May 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99 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 cores640128
Core clock speedno data650 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1000 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million1,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm22 nm
Power consumption (TDP)80 Wattunknown
Texture fill rate38.0016.00
Floating-point processing power1.216 TFLOPS0.256 TFLOPS
ROPs162
TMUs4016

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16Ring Bus
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinno 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 width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1625 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth96 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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data
Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.0
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan-+

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. 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.

R7 250X 5.90
+400%
HD Graphics 4000 1.18

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of 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.

R7 250X 2268
+400%
HD Graphics 4000 454

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.

R7 250X 2860
+496%
HD Graphics 4000 480

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:

900p60−65
+400%
12
−400%
Full HD55−60
+400%
11
−400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.80no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 6
+0%
6
+0%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
World of Tanks 21
+0%
21
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how R7 250X and HD Graphics 4000 compete in popular games:

  • R7 250X is 400% faster in 900p
  • R7 250X is 400% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 40 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.90 1.18
Recency 13 February 2014 14 May 2012
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm

R7 250X has a 400% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

HD Graphics 4000, on the other hand, has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R7 250X is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250X is a desktop card while HD Graphics 4000 is a notebook 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 R7 250X
Radeon R7 250X
Intel HD Graphics 4000
HD Graphics 4000

Other comparisons

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.


3.9 164 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 5356 votes

Rate HD Graphics 4000 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.