HD Graphics 4600 vs FirePro D300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
FirePro D300 FirePro R5000 FirePro S7000 FirePro W4000 FirePro W5000 FirePro W5000 DVI FirePro W7000 Radeon Sky 500
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD Graphics 4000 HD Graphics 4200 HD Graphics 4400 HD Graphics 4600

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro D300 with HD Graphics 4600, including specs and performance data.

FirePro D300
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
10.02
+445%

D300 outperforms HD Graphics 4600 by a whopping 445% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

FirePro D300 FirePro D300
HD Graphics 4600 HD Graphics 4600

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking457924
Place by popularitynot in top-10058
Power efficiency4.606.33
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Generation 7.5 (2013)
GPU code namePitcairnHaswell GT2
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date18 January 2014 (11 years ago)27 May 2013 (11 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 cores1280160
Core clock speed850 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1100 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million392 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm22 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate68.0022.00
Floating-point processing power2.176 TFLOPS0.352 TFLOPS
ROPs322
TMUs8020

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
Length242 mmno data
Width1-slotno 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 width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1270 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth162.6 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.3
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131+

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:

900p75−80
+436%
14
−436%
Full HD55−60
+400%
11
−400%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27
+0%
27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 22
+0%
22
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4
+0%
4
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4
+0%
4
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how FirePro D300 and HD Graphics 4600 compete in popular games:

  • FirePro D300 is 436% faster in 900p
  • FirePro D300 is 400% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 10.02 1.84
Recency 18 January 2014 27 May 2013
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 45 Watt

FirePro D300 has a 444.6% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 7 months.

HD Graphics 4600, on the other hand, has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The FirePro D300 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 4600 in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro D300 is a workstation card while HD Graphics 4600 is a notebook one.

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 FirePro D300
FirePro D300
Intel HD Graphics 4600
HD Graphics 4600
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

FirePro D300 FirePro D300
vs
GRID M60-8Q GRID M60 8Q
HD Graphics 4600 HD Graphics 4600
vs
HD Graphics 610 HD Graphics 610
FirePro D300 FirePro D300
vs
T400 4 GB T400 4 GB
RTX 5880 Ada Generation NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation
vs
Jetson Nano GPU Nano GPU
GT 620 NVIDIA GeForce GT 620
vs
FX 4800 FX 4800
UHD Graphics P750 Intel UHD Graphics P750
vs
T2000 Mobile Quadro T2000 Mobile
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Intel Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
vs
FirePro D300 FirePro D300
UHD Graphics Intel UHD Graphics
vs
FirePro D300 FirePro D300
RTX 5880 Ada Generation NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation
vs
Tesla V100 DGXS 32 GB V100 DGXS 32 GB
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) Intel Graphics 4 Cores iGPU (Arc)
vs
R5 Graphics R5 Graphics
T400 4 GB NVIDIA T400 4 GB
vs
7950 GX2 GeForce 7950 GX2
GTX 1080 11Gbps NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 11Gbps
vs
Quadro P5200 Quadro P5200
Apple M3 Max 30-Core GPU Apple M3 Max 30-Core GPU
vs
NVS 140M NVS 140M

Community ratings

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

3.9 30 votes

Rate FirePro D300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 2590 votes

Rate HD Graphics 4600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro D300 or HD Graphics 4600, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.