HD Graphics (Braswell) vs Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) and HD Graphics (Braswell), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 (Bristol Ridge) outperforms HD Graphics (Braswell) by a whopping 215% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 909 | 1208 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.99 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2 (2016) | Gen. 8 (2015−2016) |
| GPU code name | Bristol Ridge | Braswell |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 1 April 2015 (9 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 | 512 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 320 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-45 Watt | no data |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | 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 bus width | 64/128 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
| Shared memory | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 11.2 |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
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.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
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.
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 | 15
+275%
| 4−5
−275%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+35.7%
|
27−30
−35.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+111%
|
18−20
−111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 16
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+35.7%
|
27−30
−35.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+35.7%
|
27−30
−35.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how R7 (Bristol Ridge) and HD Graphics (Braswell) compete in popular games:
- R7 (Bristol Ridge) is 275% 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 R7 (Bristol Ridge) is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 (Bristol Ridge) is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.95 | 0.62 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 1 April 2015 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
R7 (Bristol Ridge) has a 214.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
HD Graphics (Braswell), on the other hand, has a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics (Braswell) in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
