Quadro T2000 Mobile vs HD Graphics 400

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
12EU Mobile 400 400 (Braswell) 405 500 505 510 520 530 610 620 630
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
T400 Mobile T500 Mobile T600 Mobile T1000 Mobile T1000 Max-Q T1200 Max-Q T1200 Mobile T2000 Mobile T2000 Max-Q T500 Max-Q T550 Mobile T600 Max-Q

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 400 with Quadro T2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 400
2015
8 GB DDR3L, 6 Watt
1.04

T2000 Mobile outperforms HD Graphics 400 by a whopping 1743% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
HD Graphics 400 HD Graphics 400
T2000 Mobile T2000 Mobile

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1158327
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency13.4124.72
ArchitectureGeneration 8.0 (2014−2015)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameBraswell GT1TU117
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date1 April 2015 (11 years ago)27 May 2019 (7 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores961024
Core clock speed320 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speed600 MHz1785 MHz
Number of transistors189 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)6 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate7.200114.2
Floating-point processing power0.1152 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs232
TMUs1264
L1 Cacheno data1 MB
L2 Cacheno data1024 KB

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfaceRing BusPCIe 3.0 x16

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 typeDDR3LGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data128.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.34.6
OpenCL3.01.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 1.04 19.17
Recency 1 April 2015 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 6 Watt 60 Watt

HD Graphics 400 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 900% lower power consumption.

T2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 1743% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 17% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 400 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 400 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro T2000 Mobile 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.

HD Graphics 400 HD Graphics 400
vs
GT 720M GeForce GT 720M
T2000 Mobile Quadro T2000 Mobile
vs
RTX 3000 Max-Q Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q
HD Graphics 400 HD Graphics 400
vs
HD 8410G Radeon HD 8410G
R7 Graphics AMD R7 Graphics
vs
RTX A3000 Mobile A3000 Mobile
R7 Graphics AMD R7 Graphics
vs
RTX 4060 Ti 4060 Ti
HD 7540D IGP AMD HD 7540D IGP
vs
GTX 1650 1650
HD 6530D IGP AMD HD 6530D IGP
vs
ATI HD 5770 X2 5770 X2
HD 6530D IGP AMD HD 6530D IGP
vs
210 OEM 210 OEM
HD Graphics 400 Intel Graphics 400
vs
T500 Mobile T500 Mobile
HD Graphics 400 Intel Graphics 400
vs
T400 Mobile T400 Mobile
HD Graphics 400 Intel Graphics 400
vs
T1200 Mobile T1200 Mobile
HD Graphics 400 Intel Graphics 400
vs
T400
HD Graphics 400 Intel Graphics 400
vs
Radeon 610M 610M

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

2.6 459 votes

Rate HD Graphics 400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 514 votes

Rate Quadro T2000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about HD Graphics 400 or Quadro T2000 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.