GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs HD Graphics 2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 2000 and GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 4428% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1227 | 223 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 28.96 |
| Architecture | Generation 6.0 (2011) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Sandy Bridge GT1 | GN20-P0-R 6 GB |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 6 January 2023 (2 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 | 48 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 1237 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 1492 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 8.100 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1296 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 1 | no data |
| TMUs | 6 | 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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | 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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 12000 MHz |
| 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 outputs | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12_2 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | no data |
| OpenCL | N/A | no data |
| 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 | 11
−527%
| 69
+527%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 37 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−683%
|
45−50
+683%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2600%
|
81
+2600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−683%
|
45−50
+683%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−967%
|
32
+967%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2525%
|
105
+2525%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−567%
|
40
+567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−667%
|
23
+667%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−1113%
|
97
+1113%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 120−130 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2050%
|
86
+2050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1875%
|
150−160
+1875%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−1000%
|
55−60
+1000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1540%
|
80−85
+1540%
|
| World of Tanks | 16−18
−1519%
|
250−260
+1519%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−683%
|
45−50
+683%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−533%
|
19
+533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−863%
|
75−80
+863%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−1800%
|
76
+1800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1875%
|
150−160
+1875%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−5733%
|
170−180
+5733%
|
| World of Tanks | 1−2
−16500%
|
160−170
+16500%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1750%
|
70−75
+1750%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−825%
|
37
+825%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−1260%
|
65−70
+1260%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−193%
|
40−45
+193%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−193%
|
40−45
+193%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−7600%
|
75−80
+7600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−193%
|
40−45
+193%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 24−27 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−193%
|
40−45
+193%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−3200%
|
30−35
+3200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how HD Graphics 2000 and RTX 3050 6GB Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 527% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 16500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is ahead in 32 tests (52%)
- there's a draw in 30 tests (48%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.54 | 24.45 |
| Recency | 1 February 2011 | 6 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 8 nm |
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile has a 4427.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
