Radeon HD 8400 vs HD Graphics 2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 2000 with Radeon HD 8400, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 2000
2011
0.54

HD 8400 outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a significant 26% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12281184
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data1.90
ArchitectureGeneration 6.0 (2011)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameSandy Bridge GT1Kalindi
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 February 2011 (14 years ago)23 November 2013 (11 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 cores48128
Core clock speed850 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million1,178 million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown25 Watt
Texture fill rate8.1003.200
Floating-point processing power0.1296 TFLOPS0.1024 TFLOPS
ROPs14
TMUs68

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16IGP
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_0)
Shader Model4.16.3
OpenGL3.14.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131

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.

HD Graphics 2000 0.54
HD 8400 0.68
+25.9%

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.

HD Graphics 2000 213
HD 8400 267
+25.4%

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.

HD Graphics 2000 896
HD 8400 2013
+125%

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
−10%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Valorant 27−30
−3.6%
27−30
+3.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−11.8%
19
+11.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
+22.2%
9
−22.2%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 27−30
−3.6%
27−30
+3.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
+37.5%
8
−37.5%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 27−30
−3.6%
27−30
+3.6%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 1−2
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1

This is how HD Graphics 2000 and HD 8400 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 2000 is 10% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD Graphics 2000 is 38% faster.
  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 8400 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 2000 is ahead in 2 tests (6%)
  • HD 8400 is ahead in 11 tests (31%)
  • there's a draw in 22 tests (63%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.54 0.68
Recency 1 February 2011 23 November 2013
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm

HD 8400 has a 25.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon HD 8400 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 Radeon HD 8400 is a desktop one.

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
AMD Radeon HD 8400
Radeon HD 8400

Other comparisons

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 1364 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 152 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about HD Graphics 2000 or Radeon HD 8400, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.