Quadro FX 2500M vs HD Graphics 4200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 4200 with Quadro FX 2500M, including specs and performance data.
HD Graphics 4200 outperforms FX 2500M by an impressive 77% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1121 | 1225 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 16.97 | 0.85 |
| Architecture | Generation 7.5 (2013) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Haswell GT2 | G71 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 29 September 2005 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 160 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 850 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 392 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.00 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.272 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 2 | 16 |
| TMUs | 20 | 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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | Ring Bus | MXM-III |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 38.4 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/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 HD | 8
+100%
| 4−5
−100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 25.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+10.7%
|
27−30
−10.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 13
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+10.7%
|
27−30
−10.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+10.7%
|
27−30
−10.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how HD Graphics 4200 and FX 2500M compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics 4200 is 100% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD Graphics 4200 is 400% faster.
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the FX 2500M is 31% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD Graphics 4200 is ahead in 20 tests (57%)
- FX 2500M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
- there's a draw in 14 tests (40%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.99 | 0.56 |
| Recency | 2 September 2013 | 29 September 2005 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 4 Watt | 45 Watt |
HD Graphics 4200 has a 76.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 309.1% more advanced lithography process, and 1025% lower power consumption.
The HD Graphics 4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 4200 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 2500M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
