Intel HD Graphics 500 vs NVIDIA GeForce 210
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 500 and NVIDIA GeForce 210 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 500
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- 2.2x more texture fill rate: 9 GTexel / s vs 4.16 GTexel / s
- 3.7x better floating-point performance: 144.0 gflops vs 39.36 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 40 nm
- 5.2x lower typical power consumption: 6 Watt vs 30.5 Watt
- 16x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 512 MB
- 2.6x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 299 vs 113
- 2.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 81 vs 32
- Around 16% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 579 vs 497
- Around 63% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1122 vs 688
- Around 16% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 579 vs 497
- Around 63% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1122 vs 688
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 1 September 2015 vs 12 October 2009 |
| Texture fill rate | 9 GTexel / s vs 4.16 GTexel / s |
| Floating-point performance | 144.0 gflops vs 39.36 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 6 Watt vs 30.5 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 512 MB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 299 vs 113 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 81 vs 32 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 579 vs 497 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1122 vs 688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 579 vs 497 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1122 vs 688 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 210
- 7x more core clock speed: 1402 MHz vs 200 MHz
- Around 33% higher pipelines: 16 vs 12
- 2.7x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 2438 vs 888
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1402 MHz vs 200 MHz |
| Pipelines | 16 vs 12 |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2438 vs 888 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 500
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 210
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel HD Graphics 500 | NVIDIA GeForce 210 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 299 | 113 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 81 | 32 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 888 | 2438 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 3.525 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 35.665 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.215 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 2.987 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.154 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 488 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 579 | 497 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1122 | 688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 488 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 579 | 497 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1122 | 688 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel HD Graphics 500 | NVIDIA GeForce 210 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | Apollo Lake GT1 | GT218 |
| Launch date | 1 September 2015 | 12 October 2009 |
| Place in performance rating | 1645 | 1654 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $29.49 | |
| Price now | $32.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 6.81 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 750 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 1402 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 144.0 gflops | 39.36 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 12 | 16 |
| Texture fill rate | 9 GTexel / s | 4.16 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 6 Watt | 30.5 Watt |
| Transistor count | 189 million | 260 million |
| CUDA cores | 16 | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, 1x VGA, DVIVGADisplayPort |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Height | 2.731" (6.9 cm) | |
| Length | 6.60" (16.8 cm) | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 10.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.1 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory type | DDR3L / LPDDR3 / LPDDR4 | GDDR2 |
| Shared memory | 1 | |
| Memory bandwidth | 8.0 GB / s | |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| CUDA | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare Intel HD Graphics 500 with others
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 8600M GS
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 570M
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIAGeForce G103M
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIANVS 300
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 560 Ti X2
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
AMDRadeon 610M (Mendocino)
