HD Graphics 4400 vs Radeon Vega Frontier Edition

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Vega Frontier Edition with HD Graphics 4400, including specs and performance data.

Vega Frontier Edition
2017
16 GB HBM2, 300 Watt
33.83
+2388%

Vega Frontier Edition outperforms HD Graphics 4400 by a whopping 2388% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1591023
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation19.41no data
Power efficiency7.754.67
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Generation 7.5 (2013)
GPU code nameVega 10Haswell GT2
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date27 June 2017 (7 years ago)3 September 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$999 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 cores4096160
Core clock speed1382 MHz200 MHz
Boost clock speed1600 MHz950 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million392 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm22 nm
Power consumption (TDP)300 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate409.619.00
Floating-point processing power13.11 TFLOPS0.304 TFLOPS
ROPs642
TMUs25620

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16Ring Bus
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-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 typeHBM2System Shared
Maximum RAM amount16 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width2048 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed945 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth483.8 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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_1)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.3
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.1.125+

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.

Vega Frontier Edition 33.83
+2388%
HD Graphics 4400 1.36

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.

Vega Frontier Edition 13005
+2391%
HD Graphics 4400 522

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:

900p290−300
+2317%
12
−2317%
Full HD240−250
+2300%
10
−2300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.16no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Elden Ring 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

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

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 5
+0%
5
+0%
Elden Ring 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10
+0%
10
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
+0%
3
+0%
World of Tanks 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+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 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how Vega Frontier Edition and HD Graphics 4400 compete in popular games:

  • Vega Frontier Edition is 2317% faster in 900p
  • Vega Frontier Edition is 2300% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 44 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 33.83 1.36
Recency 27 June 2017 3 September 2013
Chip lithography 14 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 300 Watt 20 Watt

Vega Frontier Edition has a 2387.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.

HD Graphics 4400, on the other hand, has 1400% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 4400 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Vega Frontier Edition is a workstation card while HD Graphics 4400 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 Vega Frontier Edition
Radeon Vega Frontier Edition
Intel HD Graphics 4400
HD Graphics 4400

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.


3.7 25 votes

Rate Radeon Vega Frontier Edition on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 1469 votes

Rate HD Graphics 4400 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.