UHD Graphics 605 vs HD Graphics 505

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 505 and UHD Graphics 605, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD Graphics 505
2016
8 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4, 10 Watt
0.94

UHD Graphics 605 outperforms HD Graphics 505 by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11181065
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency10.9216.31
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameApollo Lake GT1.5Gemini Lake GT1.5
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 September 2016 (8 years ago)11 December 2017 (6 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 cores144144
Core clock speed200 MHz200 MHz
Boost clock speed650 MHz750 MHz
Number of transistors189 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt5 Watt
Texture fill rate11.7013.50
Floating-point processing power0.1872 TFLOPS0.216 TFLOPS
ROPs33
TMUs1818

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 BusRing Bus

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/LPDDR4System Shared
Maximum RAM amount8 GBSystem 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 DependentPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync++

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.03.0
Vulkan1.31.3

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 505 0.94
UHD Graphics 605 1.17
+24.5%

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 505 362
UHD Graphics 605 453
+25.1%

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 505 620
UHD Graphics 605 648
+4.5%

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 505 2351
+8.7%
UHD Graphics 605 2162

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

HD Graphics 505 408
UHD Graphics 605 454
+11.3%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

HD Graphics 505 3414
+1.6%
UHD Graphics 605 3360

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

HD Graphics 505 32481
UHD Graphics 605 45008
+38.6%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

HD Graphics 505 94
UHD Graphics 605 113
+20.2%

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 HD7
−71.4%
12
+71.4%
4K12−14
−25%
15
+25%

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
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 1−2
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−3.2%
30−35
+3.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 1−2
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−10%
10−12
+10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−3.2%
30−35
+3.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 1−2
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−16.7%
14−16
+16.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+900%
1
−900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−3.2%
30−35
+3.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 1−2
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 1−2
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

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 1−2
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1

This is how HD Graphics 505 and UHD Graphics 605 compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics 605 is 71% faster in 1080p
  • UHD Graphics 605 is 25% faster in 4K

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD Graphics 505 is 900% faster.
  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics 605 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 505 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • UHD Graphics 605 is ahead in 24 tests (59%)
  • there's a draw in 16 tests (39%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.94 1.17
Recency 1 September 2016 11 December 2017
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 5 Watt

UHD Graphics 605 has a 24.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 100% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 605 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 505 in performance tests.


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 505
HD Graphics 505
Intel UHD Graphics 605
UHD Graphics 605

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.


2.6 256 votes

Rate HD Graphics 505 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 804 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 605 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.