Radeon HD 6320 vs HD Graphics 4400

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1019not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.70no data
ArchitectureGeneration 7.5 (2013)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameHaswell GT2Loveland
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 September 2013 (11 years ago)15 August 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$554.99

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 cores16080
Core clock speed200 MHz508 MHz
Boost clock speed950 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistors392 million450 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate19.004.064
Floating-point processing power0.304 TFLOPS0.08128 TFLOPS
ROPs24
TMUs208

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).

InterfaceRing BusIGP

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 typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo 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 compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.34.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

HD Graphics 4400 522
+255%
HD 6320 147

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.

HD Graphics 4400 736
+144%
HD 6320 302

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.

HD Graphics 4400 3583
+302%
HD 6320 892

Pros & cons summary


Recency 3 September 2013 15 August 2011
Chip lithography 22 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 18 Watt

HD Graphics 4400 has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 81.8% more advanced lithography process.

HD 6320, on the other hand, has 11.1% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between HD Graphics 4400 and Radeon HD 6320. We've got no test results to judge.


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

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 4400
HD Graphics 4400
AMD Radeon HD 6320
Radeon HD 6320

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.1 1426 votes

Rate HD Graphics 4400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 190 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.