HD Graphics 2000 vs GeForce GT 435M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 435M and HD Graphics 2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 435M
2010
2 GB DDR3, 35 Watt
1.39
+153%

GT 435M outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 153% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10081214
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.77no data
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 6.0 (2011)
GPU code nameGF108Sandy Bridge GT1
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 September 2010 (14 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 speed650 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors585 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Wattunknown
Texture fill rate10.408.100
Floating-point processing power0.2496 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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth25.6 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 API with Feature Level 12.111.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.1
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.

GT 435M 1.39
+153%
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.

GT 435M 535
+151%
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.

GT 435M 3870
+332%
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:

900p19
+171%
7−8
−171%
Full HD24
+118%
11
−118%

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 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+17.9%
27−30
−17.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+17.9%
27−30
−17.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+17.9%
27−30
−17.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 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 0−1 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 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

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 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

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

This is how GT 435M and HD Graphics 2000 compete in popular games:

  • GT 435M is 171% faster in 900p
  • GT 435M is 118% 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 GT 435M is 150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 435M is ahead in 28 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.39 0.55
Recency 3 September 2010 1 February 2011
Chip lithography 40 nm 32 nm

GT 435M has a 152.7% higher aggregate performance score.

HD Graphics 2000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 months, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GT 435M 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.

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 GeForce GT 435M
GeForce GT 435M
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 3 votes

Rate GeForce GT 435M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 1308 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.