Radeon 740M vs HD Graphics 2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 2000 with Radeon 740M, including specs and performance data.
740M outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 1396% 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 | 1262 | 553 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 12.66 |
| Architecture | Generation 6.0 (2011) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | Sandy Bridge GT1 | Phoenix2 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 31 January 2024 (1 year 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 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 2800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 20,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.100 | 44.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1296 TFLOPS | 2.867 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 1 | 8 |
| TMUs | 6 | 16 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 4 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 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 outputs | Motherboard Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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.
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.
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 | 11
−90.9%
| 21
+90.9%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−750%
|
30−35
+750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−250%
|
27−30
+250%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−193%
|
75−80
+193%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−618%
|
120−130
+618%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−750%
|
30−35
+750%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−250%
|
27−30
+250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−300%
|
20−22
+300%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−193%
|
75−80
+193%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−1355%
|
160−170
+1355%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−750%
|
30−35
+750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−250%
|
27−30
+250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−300%
|
20−22
+300%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−193%
|
75−80
+193%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−5800%
|
55−60
+5800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−740%
|
40−45
+740%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how HD Graphics 2000 and Radeon 740M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 740M is 91% 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 Radeon 740M is 5800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 740M is ahead in 24 tests (45%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (55%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.50 | 7.48 |
| Recency | 1 February 2011 | 31 January 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 4 nm |
Radeon 740M has a 1396% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 740M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 2000 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon 740M 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.
