Intel HD Graphics 510 vs AMD Radeon HD 7540D IGP
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 510 and AMD Radeon HD 7540D IGP 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 510
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- Around 25% higher texture fill rate: 11.4 GTexel / s vs 9.12 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 32 nm
- 4.3x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 65 Watt
- Around 86% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 621 vs 333
- Around 26% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 162 vs 129
- 2.2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 2381 vs 1061
- Around 16% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1333 vs 1153
- Around 16% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1333 vs 1153
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 1 September 2015 vs 2 October 2012 |
| Texture fill rate | 11.4 GTexel / s vs 9.12 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 32 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 65 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 621 vs 333 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 162 vs 129 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2381 vs 1061 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1333 vs 1153 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1333 vs 1153 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 7540D IGP
- 2.5x more core clock speed: 760 MHz vs 300 MHz
- 16x more pipelines: 192 vs 12
- Around 60% better floating-point performance: 291.8 gflops vs 182.4 gflops
- Around 22% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2177 vs 1786
- Around 22% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2177 vs 1786
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 760 MHz vs 300 MHz |
| Pipelines | 192 vs 12 |
| Floating-point performance | 291.8 gflops vs 182.4 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2177 vs 1786 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2177 vs 1786 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 510
GPU 2: AMD Radeon HD 7540D IGP
| 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 510 | AMD Radeon HD 7540D IGP |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 621 | 333 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 162 | 129 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2381 | 1061 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.381 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 215.873 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.081 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 11.675 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 15.094 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 902 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1333 | 1153 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1786 | 2177 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 902 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1333 | 1153 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1786 | 2177 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel HD Graphics 510 | AMD Radeon HD 7540D IGP | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 | TeraScale 3 |
| Code name | Skylake GT1 | Scrapper |
| Launch date | 1 September 2015 | 2 October 2012 |
| Place in performance rating | 1509 | 1389 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $67 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 760 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 182.4 gflops | 291.8 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Pipelines | 12 | 192 |
| Texture fill rate | 11.4 GTexel / s | 9.12 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Transistor count | 189 million | 1,303 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | IGP |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | |
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | |
| Memory type | LPDDR3 / DDR4 | System Shared |
| Shared memory | 1 | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare Intel HD Graphics 510 with others
IntelHD Graphics 510 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 6800 GS
IntelHD Graphics 510 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 7900 GS
IntelHD Graphics 510 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 7050 + nForce 610i
IntelHD Graphics 510 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M Mac Edition
IntelHD Graphics 510 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 800M
IntelHD Graphics 510 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 660 Rev. 2
