FirePro W2100 vs HD Graphics 2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 2000 with FirePro W2100, including specs and performance data.
W2100 outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 325% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1212 | 843 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 6.22 |
| Architecture | Generation 6.0 (2011) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Sandy Bridge GT1 | Oland |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 February 2011 (13 years ago) | 12 August 2014 (10 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 | 48 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 630 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 680 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 26 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.100 | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1296 TFLOPS | 0.4352 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 1 | 8 |
| TMUs | 6 | 20 |
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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | low profile / half length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 28.8 GB/s |
| 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 outputs | 2x DisplayPort |
| DisplayPort count | no data | 2 |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
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. 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.
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 | 11
−27.3%
| 14
+27.3%
|
| 4K | -0−1 | 2 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−138%
|
18−20
+138%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−32.1%
|
35−40
+32.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−138%
|
18−20
+138%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−32.1%
|
35−40
+32.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−138%
|
18−20
+138%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−32.1%
|
35−40
+32.1%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how HD Graphics 2000 and FirePro W2100 compete in popular games:
- FirePro W2100 is 27% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FirePro W2100 is 200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro W2100 is ahead in 29 tests (54%)
- there's a draw in 25 tests (46%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.55 | 2.34 |
| Recency | 1 February 2011 | 12 August 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
FirePro W2100 has a 325.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The FirePro W2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 2000 is a notebook card while FirePro W2100 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
