HD Graphics 2000 vs Radeon R7 370
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 370 with HD Graphics 2000, including specs and performance data.
R7 370 outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 1991% 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 | 450 | 1259 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.83 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.28 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Generation 6.0 (2011) |
| GPU code name | Trinidad | Sandy Bridge GT1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 18 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 1 February 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1024 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 975 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 62.40 | 8.100 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.997 TFLOPS | 0.1296 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 1 |
| TMUs | 64 | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 152 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | no 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 type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 975 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
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 | 46
+318%
| 11
−318%
|
| 1440p | 57
+2750%
| 2−3
−2750%
|
| 4K | 20 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.24 | no data |
| 1440p | 2.61 | no data |
| 4K | 7.45 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+2900%
|
2−3
−2900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+2900%
|
2−3
−2900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Fortnite | 106
+2020%
|
5−6
−2020%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 38
+443%
|
7−8
−443%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+257%
|
27−30
−257%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+2900%
|
2−3
−2900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+841%
|
16−18
−841%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+591%
|
10−12
−591%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Fortnite | 41
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+600%
|
5−6
−600%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+257%
|
27−30
−257%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+591%
|
10−12
−591%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1075%
|
4−5
−1075%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Valorant | 20
−40%
|
27−30
+40%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 81
+8000%
|
1−2
−8000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+1800%
|
3−4
−1800%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+2300%
|
5−6
−2300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Dead Island 2 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
| Dead Island 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+37.5%
|
16−18
−37.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 55−60
+1833%
|
3−4
−1833%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dead Island 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
This is how R7 370 and HD Graphics 2000 compete in popular games:
- R7 370 is 318% faster in 1080p
- R7 370 is 2750% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R7 370 is 8000% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD Graphics 2000 is 40% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 370 is ahead in 29 tests (97%)
- HD Graphics 2000 is ahead in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.29 | 0.54 |
| Recency | 18 June 2015 | 1 February 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
R7 370 has a 1990.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R7 370 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 370 is a desktop card while HD Graphics 2000 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
