Quadro FX 2500M vs HD Graphics 2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 2000 with Quadro FX 2500M, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 2000
2011
0.55

FX 2500M outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking12221217
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGen. 6 Sandy Bridge (2011)G7x (2005−2007)
GPU code nameSandy BridgeG71glm
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date1 February 2011 (13 years ago)29 September 2005 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores632
Core clock speed850/1100 MHz8 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors189 million278 million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown45 Watt
Texture fill rate8.10012.00
Floating-point performance0.1296 gflopsno 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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16MXM-III

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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared512 MB
Memory bus width64/128 Bit256 Bit
Memory bandwidthno data38.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model4.13.0
OpenGL3.12.1
OpenCLN/AN/A
VulkanN/AN/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

HD Graphics 2000 0.55
FX 2500M 0.56
+1.8%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

HD Graphics 2000 213
FX 2500M 217
+1.9%

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 HD11
+10%
10−12
−10%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 1−2
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how HD Graphics 2000 and FX 2500M compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 2000 is 10% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the FX 2500M is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 2500M is ahead in 26 tests (76%)
  • there's a draw in 8 tests (24%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 0.56
Recency 1 February 2011 29 September 2005
Chip lithography 32 nm 90 nm

HD Graphics 2000 has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 181.3% more advanced lithography process.

FX 2500M, on the other hand, has a 1.8% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between HD Graphics 2000 and Quadro FX 2500M.

Be aware that HD Graphics 2000 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 2500M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel HD Graphics 2000
HD Graphics 2000
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2500M
Quadro FX 2500M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

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


2.7 1248 votes

Rate HD Graphics 2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 4 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.