Qualcomm Adreno 680 vs HD Graphics 2500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 2500 with Qualcomm Adreno 680, including specs and performance data.
Qualcomm Adreno 680 outperforms HD Graphics 2500 by a whopping 223% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1180 | 862 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 21.93 |
| Architecture | Generation 7.0 (2012−2013) | no data |
| GPU code name | Ivy Bridge GT1 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 April 2012 (12 years ago) | 6 December 2018 (6 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 | 48 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 392 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 7 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 6.900 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1104 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 1 | no data |
| TMUs | 6 | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | no data |
| Width | IGP | 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 type | System Shared | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | no data |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | no data |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 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 | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (11_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.80 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 8
−200%
| 24−27
+200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| World of Tanks | 12
−250%
|
40−45
+250%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
| World of Tanks | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how HD Graphics 2500 and Qualcomm Adreno 680 compete in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 200% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Qualcomm Adreno 680 is 1100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Qualcomm Adreno 680 is ahead in 32 tests (64%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (36%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.69 | 2.23 |
| Recency | 1 April 2012 | 6 December 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 7 nm |
Qualcomm Adreno 680 has a 223.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 214.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Qualcomm Adreno 680 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2500 in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 2500 is a desktop card while Qualcomm Adreno 680 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
