HD Graphics 500 vs HD Graphics 2000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 2000 and HD Graphics 500, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD Graphics 2000
2011
0.55

HD Graphics 500 outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a considerable 40% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12121148
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data8.92
ArchitectureGeneration 6.0 (2011)Generation 9.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameSandy Bridge GT1Apollo Lake GT1
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 February 2011 (13 years ago)1 September 2015 (9 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 cores4896
Core clock speed850 MHz200 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz650 MHz
Number of transistors189 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown10 Watt
Texture fill rate8.1007.800
Floating-point processing power0.1296 TFLOPS0.1248 TFLOPS
ROPs12
TMUs612

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16Ring Bus

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 typeSystem SharedDDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared8 GB
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
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 outputsPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.4
OpenGL3.14.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3

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.

HD Graphics 2000 0.55
HD Graphics 500 0.77
+40%

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.

HD Graphics 2000 213
HD Graphics 500 298
+39.9%

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 HD11
+22.2%
9
−22.2%
1440p0−11

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−10.7%
30−35
+10.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−10.7%
30−35
+10.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−10.7%
30−35
+10.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 1−2
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

1440p
Epic Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

This is how HD Graphics 2000 and HD Graphics 500 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 2000 is 22% 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 HD Graphics 500 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 500 is ahead in 27 tests (79%)
  • there's a draw in 7 tests (21%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 0.77
Recency 1 February 2011 1 September 2015
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm

HD Graphics 500 has a 40% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.

The HD Graphics 500 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.


Intel HD Graphics 2000
HD Graphics 2000
Intel HD Graphics 500
HD Graphics 500

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.


2.7 1285 votes

Rate HD Graphics 2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 688 votes

Rate HD Graphics 500 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.