HD Graphics 400 vs Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with HD Graphics 400, including specs and performance data.
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms HD Graphics 400 by a whopping 143% 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 | 864 | 1137 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 13.36 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri Spectre | Braswell GT1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 January 2014 (11 years ago) | 1 April 2015 (10 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 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 320 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 6 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.1152 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 2 |
| TMUs | no data | 12 |
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 | no data | Ring Bus |
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 | no data | DDR3L |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| 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 data | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 14
+180%
| 5−6
−180%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+169%
|
16−18
−169%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+178%
|
18−20
−178%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+169%
|
16−18
−169%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+169%
|
16−18
−169%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+156%
|
9−10
−156%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
This is how R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and HD Graphics 400 compete in popular games:
- R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 180% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.53 | 1.04 |
| Recency | 14 January 2014 | 1 April 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 143.3% higher aggregate performance score.
HD Graphics 400, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 400 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop graphics card while HD Graphics 400 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
