HD Graphics 2000 vs Radeon R9 Nano
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Nano with HD Graphics 2000, including specs and performance data.
R9 Nano outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 3878% 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 | 308 | 1291 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.76 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.93 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Generation 6.0 (2011) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | Sandy Bridge GT1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 27 August 2015 (10 years ago) | 1 February 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 4096 | 48 |
| Compute units | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 | 8.100 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS | 0.1296 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 1 |
| TMUs | 256 | 6 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | no data |
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 | 1x 8-pin | no data |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | System Shared |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x 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 | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 91
+727%
| 11
−727%
|
| 4K | 46
+4500%
| 1−2
−4500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.13 | no data |
| 4K | 14.11 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+5750%
|
2−3
−5750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 45−50
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+5750%
|
2−3
−5750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+6600%
|
1−2
−6600%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+5250%
|
2−3
−5250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+1975%
|
4−5
−1975%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+900%
|
8−9
−900%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+459%
|
27−30
−459%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+5750%
|
2−3
−5750%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+1318%
|
16−18
−1318%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+936%
|
10−12
−936%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+6600%
|
1−2
−6600%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+5250%
|
2−3
−5250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+1975%
|
4−5
−1975%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+7500%
|
1−2
−7500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+900%
|
8−9
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+1080%
|
5−6
−1080%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+459%
|
27−30
−459%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+936%
|
10−12
−936%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+6600%
|
1−2
−6600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+1975%
|
4−5
−1975%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+900%
|
8−9
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+840%
|
5−6
−840%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+459%
|
27−30
−459%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+5250%
|
2−3
−5250%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+1333%
|
3−4
−1333%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+7350%
|
2−3
−7350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+3360%
|
5−6
−3360%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+4600%
|
4−5
−4600%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+171%
|
14−16
−171%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 110−120
+3867%
|
3−4
−3867%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+6900%
|
1−2
−6900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
This is how R9 Nano and HD Graphics 2000 compete in popular games:
- R9 Nano is 727% faster in 1080p
- R9 Nano is 4500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 Nano is 7350% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 Nano surpassed HD Graphics 2000 in all 27 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.29 | 0.51 |
| Recency | 27 August 2015 | 1 February 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
R9 Nano has a 3878% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 14% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R9 Nano is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 Nano is a desktop graphics 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.
