HD Graphics 2000 vs Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) and HD Graphics 2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R5 (Bristol Ridge) outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 344% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 839 | 1216 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Power efficiency | 3.72 | no data |
Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | Generation 6.0 (2011) |
GPU code name | Bristol Ridge | Sandy Bridge GT1 |
Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
Release date | 1 June 2016 (8 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 cores | 384 | 48 |
Core clock speed | no data | 850 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | 1350 MHz |
Number of transistors | 3100 Million | 189 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 32 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 12-45 Watt | unknown |
Texture fill rate | no data | 8.100 |
Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.1296 TFLOPS |
ROPs | no data | 1 |
TMUs | no data | 6 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
Interface | no data | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
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 | no data | System Shared |
Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | System Shared |
Memory clock speed | no data | 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 data | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
OpenGL | no data | 3.1 |
OpenCL | no data | N/A |
Vulkan | - | N/A |
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 | 12
+20%
| 10
−20%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Far Cry 5 | 4 | 0−1 |
Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
Hitman 3 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+32.1%
|
27−30
−32.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
Hitman 3 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+32.1%
|
27−30
−32.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
Hitman 3 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+32.1%
|
27−30
−32.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Hitman 3 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
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 | 1−2 | 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 R5 (Bristol Ridge) and HD Graphics 2000 compete in popular games:
- R5 (Bristol Ridge) is 20% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R5 (Bristol Ridge) is 250% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R5 (Bristol Ridge) surpassed HD Graphics 2000 in all 29 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 2.44 | 0.55 |
Recency | 1 June 2016 | 1 February 2011 |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
R5 (Bristol Ridge) has a 343.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2000 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.