Quadro FX 380 vs HD Graphics 530

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 530 with Quadro FX 380, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 530
2015
64 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4, 15 Watt
2.60
+534%

HD Graphics 530 outperforms FX 380 by a whopping 534% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8201253
Place by popularity88not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.02
Power efficiency11.880.83
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameSkylake GT2G96
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)30 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$129

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 cores19216
Core clock speed350 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed950 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt34 Watt
Texture fill rate22.803.600
Floating-point processing power0.3648 TFLOPS0.0352 TFLOPS
ROPs38
TMUs248

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 BusPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data198 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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/LPDDR4GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount64 GB256 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared700 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data22.4 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 Dependent2x DVI

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)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA-1.1

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 530 2.60
+534%
FX 380 0.41

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 530 1001
+538%
FX 380 157

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 HD13
+550%
2−3
−550%
4K7
+600%
1−2
−600%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data64.50
4Kno data129.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 13
+550%
2−3
−550%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+550%
2−3
−550%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+660%
5−6
−660%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1

4K
High Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

This is how HD Graphics 530 and FX 380 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 530 is 550% faster in 1080p
  • HD Graphics 530 is 600% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.60 0.41
Recency 1 September 2015 30 March 2009
Maximum RAM amount 64 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 34 Watt

HD Graphics 530 has a 534.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 126.7% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 530 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 380 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 530 is a notebook card while Quadro FX 380 is a 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 530
HD Graphics 530
NVIDIA Quadro FX 380
Quadro FX 380

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 1520 votes

Rate HD Graphics 530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 15 votes

Rate Quadro FX 380 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.