Riva TNT2 Ultra vs HD Graphics 530

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking818not rated
Place by popularity97not in top-100
Power efficiency12.04no data
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)Fahrenheit (1998−2000)
GPU code nameSkylake GT2NV5 B5
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)15 March 1999 (25 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$299

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 cores192no data
Core clock speed350 MHz150 MHz
Boost clock speed950 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million15 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+250 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Wattno data
Texture fill rate22.800.3
Floating-point processing power0.3648 TFLOPSno data
ROPs32
TMUs242

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 BusAGP 4x
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/LPDDR4SDR
Maximum RAM amount64 GB32 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared183 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data2.928 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 Dependent1x VGA, 2x S-Video

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)6.0
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.61.2
OpenCL3.0N/A
Vulkan+N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 September 2015 15 March 1999
Maximum RAM amount 64 GB 32 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 250 nm

HD Graphics 530 has an age advantage of 16 years, a 204700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1685.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between HD Graphics 530 and Riva TNT2 Ultra. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that HD Graphics 530 is a notebook card while Riva TNT2 Ultra is a desktop 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 Riva TNT2 Ultra
Riva TNT2 Ultra

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 1480 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 29 votes

Rate Riva TNT2 Ultra 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.