Radeon 620 vs HD Graphics 2500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 2500 with Radeon 620, including specs and performance data.
620 outperforms HD Graphics 2500 by a whopping 236% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1170 | 848 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 3.21 |
| Architecture | Generation 7.0 (2012−2013) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Ivy Bridge GT1 | Polaris 24 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 April 2012 (12 years ago) | 13 May 2019 (5 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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 730 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 1024 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 392 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 6.900 | 24.58 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1104 TFLOPS | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 1 | 8 |
| TMUs | 6 | 24 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 GB/s |
| 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 outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.80 | 1.2.131 |
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 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.
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
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−72.7%
|
18−20
+72.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
−23.3%
|
35−40
+23.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−72.7%
|
18−20
+72.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
−23.3%
|
35−40
+23.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−72.7%
|
18−20
+72.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−30%
|
12−14
+30%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
−23.3%
|
35−40
+23.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
1440p
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how HD Graphics 2500 and Radeon 620 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 620 is 200% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Radeon 620 is 550% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 620 is ahead in 34 tests (68%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (32%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.69 | 2.32 |
| Recency | 1 April 2012 | 13 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 28 nm |
HD Graphics 2500 has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process.
Radeon 620, on the other hand, has a 236.2% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 7 years.
The Radeon 620 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 Radeon 620 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
