HD Graphics 2000 vs NVS 5400M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 5400M with HD Graphics 2000, including specs and performance data.

NVS 5400M
2012
2 GB GDDR3, 35 Watt
1.62
+195%

NVS 5400M outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 195% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9541211
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.20no data
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 6.0 (2011)
GPU code nameGF108Sandy Bridge GT1
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)1 February 2011 (13 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 cores9648
Core clock speed660 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors585 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Wattunknown
Texture fill rate10.568.100
Floating-point processing power0.2534 TFLOPS0.1296 TFLOPS
ROPs41
TMUs166

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXMPCIe 1.0 x16
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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed900 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/sno data
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 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.63.1
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+-

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.

NVS 5400M 1.62
+195%
HD Graphics 2000 0.55

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.

NVS 5400M 625
+193%
HD Graphics 2000 213

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.

NVS 5400M 5198
+480%
HD Graphics 2000 896

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 HD16
+45.5%
11
−45.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+21.4%
27−30
−21.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+21.4%
27−30
−21.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+100%
8−9
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+21.4%
27−30
−21.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

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

This is how NVS 5400M and HD Graphics 2000 compete in popular games:

  • NVS 5400M is 45% 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 NVS 5400M is 150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, NVS 5400M surpassed HD Graphics 2000 in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.62 0.55
Recency 1 June 2012 1 February 2011
Chip lithography 40 nm 32 nm

NVS 5400M has a 194.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

HD Graphics 2000, on the other hand, has a 25% more advanced lithography process.

The NVS 5400M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 5400M is a mobile workstation card while HD Graphics 2000 is a desktop 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.


NVIDIA NVS 5400M
NVS 5400M
Intel HD Graphics 2000
HD Graphics 2000

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.


3.7 45 votes

Rate NVS 5400M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 1272 votes

Rate HD Graphics 2000 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.