HD Graphics 2000 vs GeForce GT 755M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 755M SLI and HD Graphics 2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GT 755M SLI outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 1478% 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 | 539 | 1266 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.07 | no data |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Generation 6.0 (2011) |
| GPU code name | N14P-? | Sandy Bridge GT1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 November 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 February 2011 (14 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x 1300 Million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2x ~50 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 8.100 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.1296 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 1 |
| TMUs | no data | 6 |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 1.0 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 type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 2x 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 5400 MHz | System Shared |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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.
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 | 36
+227%
| 11
−227%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14−16 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+1533%
|
3−4
−1533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 80−85
+204%
|
27−30
−204%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+635%
|
16−18
−635%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+455%
|
10−12
−455%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+1533%
|
3−4
−1533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+204%
|
27−30
−204%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+455%
|
10−12
−455%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+263%
|
8−9
−263%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+204%
|
27−30
−204%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+1533%
|
3−4
−1533%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+760%
|
5−6
−760%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+1720%
|
5−6
−1720%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
This is how GT 755M SLI and HD Graphics 2000 compete in popular games:
- GT 755M SLI is 227% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 755M SLI is 6100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GT 755M SLI surpassed HD Graphics 2000 in all 27 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.89 | 0.50 |
| Recency | 1 November 2013 | 1 February 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
GT 755M SLI has a 1478% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GT 755M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2000 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
