Quadro FX 2500M vs HD Graphics 4600

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 4600 with Quadro FX 2500M, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 4600
2013
45 Watt
1.84
+229%

HD Graphics 4600 outperforms FX 2500M by a whopping 229% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9101206
Place by popularity70not in top-100
Power efficiency6.400.87
ArchitectureGeneration 7.5 (2013)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameHaswell GT2G71
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date27 May 2013 (11 years ago)29 September 2005 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99.99

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 cores16032
Core clock speed400 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors392 million278 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate22.0012.00
Floating-point processing power0.352 TFLOPSno data
ROPs216
TMUs2024

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfaceRing BusMXM-III
WidthIGPno data

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 SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared600 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data38.4 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 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)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.32.1
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan+N/A

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 4600 1.84
+229%
FX 2500M 0.56

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 4600 710
+227%
FX 2500M 217

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:

900p14
+250%
4−5
−250%
Full HD11
+267%
3−4
−267%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+54.5%
10−12
−54.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6
+500%
1−2
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+54.5%
10−12
−54.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+30%
10−11
−30%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+54.5%
10−12
−54.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how HD Graphics 4600 and FX 2500M compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 4600 is 250% faster in 900p
  • HD Graphics 4600 is 267% 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 HD Graphics 4600 is 900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 4600 is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.84 0.56
Recency 27 May 2013 29 September 2005
Chip lithography 22 nm 90 nm

HD Graphics 4600 has a 228.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 309.1% more advanced lithography process.

The HD Graphics 4600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2500M in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 4600 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 2500M is a mobile workstation one.


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 4600
HD Graphics 4600
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M
Quadro FX 2500M

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.


3.2 2404 votes

Rate HD Graphics 4600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Quadro FX 2500M 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.