HD Graphics 5500 vs Quadro FX 2800M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 2800M with HD Graphics 5500, including specs and performance data.
HD Graphics 5500 outperforms FX 2800M by a considerable 40% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1099 | 985 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.99 | 6.90 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Generation 8.0 (2014−2015) |
| GPU code name | G92 | Broadwell GT2 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 December 2009 (15 years ago) | 5 September 2014 (10 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 cores | 96 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 1,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 20.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.288 TFLOPS | 0.3264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 3 |
| TMUs | 48 | 24 |
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 size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | Ring 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 type | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 9−10
−44.4%
| 13
+44.4%
|
| Full HD | 31
+182%
| 11
−182%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+25%
|
20
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14
−7.1%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4
−25%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+15.4%
|
13
−15.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2
−150%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−9.4%
|
35−40
+9.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how FX 2800M and HD Graphics 5500 compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics 5500 is 44% faster in 900p
- FX 2800M is 182% faster in 1080p
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 FX 2800M is 150% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD Graphics 5500 is 600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FX 2800M is ahead in 5 tests (10%)
- HD Graphics 5500 is ahead in 31 test (63%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (27%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.08 | 1.51 |
| Recency | 1 December 2009 | 5 September 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
HD Graphics 5500 has a 39.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The HD Graphics 5500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2800M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 2800M is a mobile workstation card while HD Graphics 5500 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
