GMA vs HD Graphics 400 (Braswell)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) and GMA, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD Graphics 400 (Braswell)
2016
0.45
+4400%

HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) outperforms GMA by a whopping 4400% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12541542
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGen. 8 (2015−2016)PowerVR SGX545 (2008−2010)
GPU code nameBraswellCloverview
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 April 2016 (8 years ago)4 May 2010 (14 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 cores12no data
Core clock speed320 MHz533 MHz
Boost clock speed640 MHzno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm32 nm
Texture fill rateno data1.066
ROPsno data1
TMUsno data2

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 1.0 x16

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 typeno dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus width64/128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.29.0c
Shader Modelno data3.0
OpenGLno dataES 2.0
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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 HD8-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8 0−1
Valorant 27−30 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1
Valorant 27−30 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1
Valorant 27−30 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16 0−1
Valorant 3−4 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.45 0.01
Recency 1 April 2016 4 May 2010
Chip lithography 14 nm 32 nm

HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) has a 4400% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.

The HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) is our recommended choice as it beats the GMA in performance tests.

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.


Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell)
HD Graphics 400 (Braswell)
Intel GMA
GMA

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.


2.1 244 votes

Rate HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 9 votes

Rate GMA on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) or GMA, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.