HD Graphics vs Quadro 2000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 2000M with HD Graphics, including specs and performance data.
2000M outperforms HD Graphics by a whopping 153% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 980 | 1240 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 46 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.28 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.56 | 1.59 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Generation 7.0 (2012−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | Ivy Bridge GT1 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 January 2011 (15 years ago) | 1 April 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $46.56 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 cores | 192 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 392 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | 6.300 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4224 TFLOPS | 0.1008 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 1 |
| TMUs | 32 | 6 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | DDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.80 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 HD | 38
+171%
| 14−16
−171%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 1.23 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+179%
|
14−16
−179%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+171%
|
14−16
−171%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+179%
|
14−16
−179%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+179%
|
14−16
−179%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
This is how Quadro 2000M and HD Graphics compete in popular games:
- Quadro 2000M is 171% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.82 | 0.72 |
| Recency | 13 January 2011 | 1 April 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 35 Watt |
Quadro 2000M has a 153% higher aggregate performance score.
HD Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 82% more advanced lithography process, and 57% lower power consumption.
The Quadro 2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 2000M is a mobile workstation graphics card while HD Graphics is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
