HD Graphics 2000 vs Radeon R7 350

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking570not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.84no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Gen. 6 Sandy Bridge (2011)
GPU code nameCape VerdeSandy Bridge
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date6 July 2016 (7 years ago)1 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Current price$142 $318

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 cores5126
Core clock speed800 MHz850/1100 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Wattunknown
Texture fill rate25.608.100
Floating-point performance819.2 gflops10.2 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon R7 350 and HD Graphics 2000 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 Bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed4500 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth72 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno data+

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.63.1
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 July 2016 1 February 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm

We couldn't decide between Radeon R7 350 and HD Graphics 2000. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon R7 350 is a desktop card while HD Graphics 2000 is a notebook 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.


AMD Radeon R7 350
Radeon R7 350
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.


3.8 456 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 1193 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.