NVS 4200M vs HD Graphics 500

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 500 with NVS 4200M, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 500
2015
8 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4, 10 Watt
0.77
+5.5%

HD Graphics 500 outperforms NVS 4200M by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11451157
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency8.892.02
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameApollo Lake GT1GF119
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)22 February 2011 (13 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 cores9648
Core clock speed200 MHz810 MHz
Boost clock speed650 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate7.8006.480
Floating-point processing power0.1248 TFLOPS0.1555 TFLOPS
ROPs24
TMUs128

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 datamedium sized
InterfaceRing BusMXM
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 typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4DDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GB1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data12.8 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 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan1.3N/A
CUDA-2.1

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 500 0.77
+5.5%
NVS 4200M 0.73

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 500 298
+6.4%
NVS 4200M 280

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 500 482
NVS 4200M 507
+5.2%

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
−62.5%
13
+62.5%
1440p10−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

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

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how HD Graphics 500 and NVS 4200M compete in popular games:

  • NVS 4200M is 63% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD Graphics 500 is 33% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 500 is ahead in 8 tests (23%)
  • there's a draw in 27 tests (77%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.77 0.73
Recency 1 September 2015 22 February 2011
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 25 Watt

HD Graphics 500 has a 5.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 150% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between HD Graphics 500 and NVS 4200M.

Be aware that HD Graphics 500 is a desktop card while NVS 4200M 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 500
HD Graphics 500
NVIDIA NVS 4200M
NVS 4200M

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.


2.9 676 votes

Rate HD Graphics 500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 128 votes

Rate NVS 4200M 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.