Quadro FX 880M vs HD Graphics 2000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 2000 with Quadro FX 880M, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 2000
2011
0.55

FX 880M outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12161208
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data1.14
ArchitectureGeneration 6.0 (2011)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameSandy Bridge GT1GT216
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date1 February 2011 (13 years ago)7 January 2010 (14 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 cores4848
Core clock speed850 MHz550 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown35 Watt
Texture fill rate8.1008.800
Floating-point processing power0.1296 TFLOPS0.1162 TFLOPS
ROPs18
TMUs616

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)

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 SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared790 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data25.28 GB/s
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.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model4.14.1
OpenGL3.13.3
OpenCLN/A1.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA-1.2

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
FX 880M 0.58
+5.5%

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
FX 880M 223
+4.7%

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.

HD Graphics 2000 896
FX 880M 2639
+195%

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 HD10
−90%
19
+90%

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
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
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
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
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
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
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
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
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
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
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
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 1−2
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

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%

Full HD
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High Preset

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 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how HD Graphics 2000 and FX 880M compete in popular games:

  • FX 880M is 90% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the FX 880M is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 880M is ahead in 26 tests (76%)
  • there's a draw in 8 tests (24%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 0.58
Recency 1 February 2011 7 January 2010
Chip lithography 32 nm 40 nm

HD Graphics 2000 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.

FX 880M, on the other hand, has a 5.5% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between HD Graphics 2000 and Quadro FX 880M.

Be aware that HD Graphics 2000 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 880M is a mobile workstation one.


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
NVIDIA Quadro FX 880M
Quadro FX 880M

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 1326 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 41 vote

Rate Quadro FX 880M 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.