GeForce GTS 150M vs HD Graphics 2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 2000 and GeForce GTS 150M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTS 150M outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 137% 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 | 1291 | 1098 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.07 |
| Architecture | Generation 6.0 (2011) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Sandy Bridge GT1 | G94 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 February 2011 (15 years ago) | 3 March 2009 (17 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 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.100 | 12.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1296 TFLOPS | 0.128 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 192 |
| ROPs | 1 | 16 |
| TMUs | 6 | 32 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 64 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 size | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | Up to 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 51 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 Connectors | No outputs | DisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVILVDSSingle Link DVIVGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 11
−118%
| 24−27
+118%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−22.2%
|
30−35
+22.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−64.7%
|
27−30
+64.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−22.2%
|
30−35
+22.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−22.2%
|
30−35
+22.2%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−160%
|
12−14
+160%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 2−3 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Low
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how HD Graphics 2000 and GTS 150M compete in popular games:
- GTS 150M is 118% 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 GTS 150M is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTS 150M performs better in 24 tests (59%)
- there's a draw in 17 tests (41%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.51 | 1.21 |
| Recency | 1 February 2011 | 3 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
HD Graphics 2000 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 103% more advanced lithography process.
GTS 150M, on the other hand, has a 137% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GTS 150M 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.
