Radeon PRO W7700 vs HD Graphics 4400

Place in the ranking	1019	61
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	56.20
Power efficiency	4.71	18.29
Architecture	Generation 7.5 (2013)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	Haswell GT2	Navi 32
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	3 September 2013 (11 years ago)	13 November 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	3072
Core clock speed	200 MHz	1900 MHz
Boost clock speed	950 MHz	2600 MHz
Number of transistors	392 million	28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	22 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	190 Watt
Texture fill rate	19.00	499.2
Floating-point processing power	0.304 TFLOPS	31.95 TFLOPS
ROPs	2	96
TMUs	20	192
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	48

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	Ring Bus	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	241 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 8-pin

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	16 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	576.0 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

4x DisplayPort 2.1

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.

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.2
Vulkan	+	1.3

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.

HD Graphics 4400 1.35

PRO W7700 49.84
+3592%

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

PRO W7700 19227
+3583%

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:

900p	12 −3233%	400−450 +3233%
Full HD	10 −3400%	350−400 +3400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

2.85

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5
−3400%

140−150

+3400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −3567%	220−230 +3567%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −3400%	140−150 +3400%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −3400%	140−150 +3400%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −3400%	70−75 +3400%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −3567%	110−120 +3567%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −3567%	110−120 +3567%
Hitman 3	6−7 −3567%	220−230 +3567%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −3471%	500−550 +3471%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4 −3400%	140−150 +3400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −3525%	290−300 +3525%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −3536%	1200−1250 +3536%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −3567%	220−230 +3567%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −3400%	140−150 +3400%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −3400%	140−150 +3400%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −3400%	70−75 +3400%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −3567%	110−120 +3567%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −3567%	110−120 +3567%
Hitman 3	6−7 −3567%	220−230 +3567%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −3471%	500−550 +3471%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −3400%	70−75 +3400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −3525%	290−300 +3525%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −3536%	400−450 +3536%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −3536%	1200−1250 +3536%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −3567%	220−230 +3567%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −3400%	140−150 +3400%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −3400%	140−150 +3400%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −3400%	70−75 +3400%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −3567%	110−120 +3567%
Hitman 3	6−7 −3567%	220−230 +3567%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 −3471%	500−550 +3471%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −3525%	290−300 +3525%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 −3536%	400−450 +3536%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −3536%	1200−1250 +3536%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−3400%

70−75
+3400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −3400%	35−40 +3400%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −3400%	70−75 +3400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −3400%	35−40 +3400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −3400%	35−40 +3400%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −3400%	35−40 +3400%
Hitman 3	7−8 −3471%	250−260 +3471%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −3500%	180−190 +3500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −3400%	35−40 +3400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6−7 −3567%	220−230 +3567%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
−3400%

140−150

+3400%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−3400%

35−40
+3400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −3400%	35−40 +3400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −3400%	35−40 +3400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
−3567%

110−120

+3567%

This is how HD Graphics 4400 and PRO W7700 compete in popular games:

PRO W7700 is 3233% faster in 900p
PRO W7700 is 3400% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.35	49.84
Recency	3 September 2013	13 November 2023
Chip lithography	22 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	190 Watt

HD Graphics 4400 has 850% lower power consumption.

PRO W7700, on the other hand, has a 3591.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 340% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon PRO W7700 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 4400 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 4400 is a notebook card while Radeon PRO W7700 is a workstation one.

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