That is the thing with this scenario, that based on the fact that the HP laptop is working with 2 different Graphics controllers it is hard to determine which is the one working with Blender and which is the one crashing the application.
Please open "Device Manager" select "Display Adapters" and provide a screenshot of that, this is for us to confirm if both Graphics controllers are showing in there.
In HP's web site, they have 2 Graphics drivers available, the one provided on the previous post, version 25.20.100.6471 for Intel® and the one available for Nvidia version 25.21.14.1781, the laptop should work with no problems if both of those drivers are installed since those are the latest ones validated by HP:
//support.hp.com/us-en/drivers/selfservice/hp-pavilion-15-cs2000-laptop-pc/26122239/model/26122240
For the Intel® Graphic controller, we recommend a clean installation of Graphics driver version 25.20.100.6471 as indicated on our last post, please try that and let us know the results.
Just to let you know, there is a new Intel® Graphics driver available for Intel® UHD Graphics 620 controller, the Intel® drivers are generic, meaning they might or might not work with your platform, in the following link you will find that driver to try a clean installation of it as well and let us know the results, version 26.20.100.8141:
//downloadcenter.intel.com/download/29530/Intel-Graphics-Windows-10-DCH-Drivers?product=126789
Regarding the upgrade of the Nvidia Graphics driver, the best thing to do will be to get in contact directly with them to verify if that if the proper driver for your system, especially that the installation of that driver was suggested in the Blender forums:
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores24384Core clock speed300 MHz1518 MHzBoost clock speed1150 MHz1582 MHzNumber of transistors189 million1,800 millionManufacturing process technology14 nm14 nmPower consumption [TDP]15 Watt10/25 WattTexture fill rate27.6024.91
Size and compatibility
Information on UHD Graphics 620 and GeForce MX250 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
Laptop sizeno datalargeInterfacePCIe 3.0 x1PCIe 3.0 x4Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
Memory
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
Memory typeLPDDR3/DDR4GDDR5Maximum RAM amount32 GB4 GBMemory bus widthSystem Shared64 BitMemory clock speedSystem Shared7000 MHzMemory bandwidthno data48.06 GB/sShared memory+-
Video outputs and ports
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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX12 [12_1]12 [12_1]Shader Model6.46.4OpenGL4.64.6OpenCL2.11.2Vulkan1.1.1031.2CUDAno data6.1
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
GeForce MX250 outperforms UHD Graphics 620 by 137% in our combined benchmark results.
Passmark
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce MX250 outperforms UHD Graphics 620 by 137% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce MX250 16488
+125%
GeForce MX250 outperforms UHD Graphics 620 by 125% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
GeForce MX250 outperforms UHD Graphics 620 by 166% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Score
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce MX250 outperforms UHD Graphics 620 by 203% in 3DMark Fire Strike Score.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce MX250 outperforms UHD Graphics 620 by 213% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce MX250 21545
+131%
GeForce MX250 outperforms UHD Graphics 620 by 131% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 8%
GeForce MX250 235421
+165%
GeForce MX250 outperforms UHD Graphics 620 by 165% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GeForce MX250 outperforms UHD Graphics 620 by 127% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.
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 24 1440p16 35−40 4K8 18−20
Performance in popular games
Full HD Low Preset
Cyberpunk 20776 14
Full HD Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey8
−138%
19
+138%
Battlefield 55−6
−380%
24
+380%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare12−14
−91.7%
23
+91.7%
Cyberpunk 20776−7
−83.3%
11
+83.3%
Far Cry 57
−171%
19
+171%
Far Cry New Dawn6
−250%
21
+250%
Forza Horizon 412
−158%
31
+158%
Hitman 34−5
−275%
14−16
+275%
Horizon Zero Dawn4−5
−225%
13
+225%
Red Dead Redemption 25
−180%
14
+180%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider6
−200%
18
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Full HD High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey3−4
−333%
13
+333%
Battlefield 55−6
−280%
19
+280%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare12−14
−33.3%
16
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 20776−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Far Cry 56
−183%
17
+183%
Far Cry New Dawn5
−260%
18
+260%
Forza Horizon 47−8
−243%
24
+243%
Hitman 34−5
−75%
7
+75%
Horizon Zero Dawn4−5
−50%
6
+50%
Metro Exodus4
−75%
7
+75%
Red Dead Redemption 26−7
−33.3%
8
+33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider9−10
−22.2%
11
+22.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt6
−250%
21
+250%
Watch Dogs: Legion1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Full HD Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey3−4
−133%
7
+133%
Battlefield 55−6
−180%
14
+180%
Cyberpunk 20776−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Far Cry 56
−167%
16
+167%
Far Cry New Dawn3−4
−467%
17
+467%
Forza Horizon 47−8
−129%
16
+129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt3
−300%
12
+300%
Watch Dogs: Legion1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
1440p High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Hitman 36−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Metro Exodus3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Red Dead Redemption 21−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
1440p Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 20772−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry 55−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Far Cry New Dawn0−1 8−9 Forza Horizon 43−4
−267%
10−12
+267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
4K High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Hitman 33−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 21−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider0−1 3−4
4K Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 20770−1 1−2 Far Cry 55−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Far Cry New Dawn7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Forza Horizon 42−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
This is how UHD Graphics 620 and GeForce MX250 compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- GeForce MX250 is 84.6% faster than UHD Graphics 620
1440p resolution:
- GeForce MX250 is 119% faster than UHD Graphics 620
4K resolution:
- GeForce MX250 is 125% faster than UHD Graphics 620
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX250 is 800% faster than the UHD Graphics 620.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GeForce MX250 surpassed UHD Graphics 620 in all 52 of our tests.
Advantages and disadvantages
Performance score 2.65 6.27 Recency 1 September 2017 20 February 2019 Pipelines / CUDA cores 24 384 Power consumption [TDP] 15 Watt 10 Watt
The GeForce MX250 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 620 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Cast your own vote
Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.
UHD Graphics 620
GeForce MX250
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
User ratings: view and submit
Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.
Rate Intel UHD Graphics 620 on a scale of 1 to 5:
Rate NVIDIA GeForce MX250 on a scale of 1 to 5:
Questions and comments
Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.