HD Graphics 510 vs GeForce GT 420M

Place in the ranking	1096	952
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	3.10	7.43
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Generation 9.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code name	GF108	Skylake GT1
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	3 September 2010 (14 years ago)	1 September 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	96	96
Core clock speed	500 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	900 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	189 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm+
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	8.000	10.80
Floating-point processing power	0.192 TFLOPS	0.1728 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	3
TMUs	16	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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	Ring Bus
Width	no data	IGP

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	DDR3	LPDDR3/DDR4
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	32 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	no 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 Connectors

No outputs

Portable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	+	-

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.

GT 420M 1.03

HD Graphics 510 1.61
+56.3%

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.

GT 420M 397

HD Graphics 510 622
+56.7%

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.

GT 420M 685

HD Graphics 510 847
+23.6%

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.

GT 420M 3051

HD Graphics 510 3798
+24.5%

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:

900p	12 −50%	18−20 +50%
Full HD	17 −41.2%	24−27 +41.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−33.3%

4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	3−4
Hitman 3	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −15.4%	14−16 +15.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −3.1%	30−35 +3.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	3−4
Hitman 3	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −15.4%	14−16 +15.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −3.1%	30−35 +3.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	3−4
Hitman 3	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −15.4%	14−16 +15.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −3.1%	30−35 +3.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

−100%

2−3
+100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	1−2
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

1−2

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	1−2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−50%

3−4
+50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare

0−1

This is how GT 420M and HD Graphics 510 compete in popular games:

HD Graphics 510 is 50% faster in 900p
HD Graphics 510 is 41% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD Graphics 510 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD Graphics 510 is ahead in 31 test (72%)
there's a draw in 12 tests (28%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.03	1.61
Recency	3 September 2010	1 September 2015
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	32 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	15 Watt

HD Graphics 510 has a 56.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 53.3% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 510 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 420M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 420M is a notebook card while HD Graphics 510 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.