Radeon HD 8610G vs HD Graphics 2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 2000 and Radeon HD 8610G, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD Graphics 2000
2011
0.55

HD 8610G outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by an impressive 96% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking12221089
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGen. 6 Sandy Bridge (2011)Terascale 3 (2010−2013)
GPU code nameSandy BridgeRichland
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 February 2011 (13 years ago)23 May 2013 (11 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores6384
Core clock speed850/1100 MHz533 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz626 MHz
Number of transistors189 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology32 nm32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknownno data
Texture fill rate8.100no data
Floating-point performance0.1296 gflopsno 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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16no 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.

Maximum RAM amountSystem Sharedno data
Memory bus width64/128 Bitno 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 data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)11
Shader Model4.1no data
OpenGL3.1no data
OpenCLN/Ano data
VulkanN/A-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 8610G 1.08
+96.4%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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 8610G 418
+96.2%

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
HD 8610G 2203
+146%

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
−18.2%
13
+18.2%

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
−100%
4−5
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−62.5%
12−14
+62.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−14.3%
30−35
+14.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−62.5%
12−14
+62.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−22.2%
10−12
+22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−14.3%
30−35
+14.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−62.5%
12−14
+62.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−22.2%
10−12
+22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−14.3%
30−35
+14.3%

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
−100%
4−5
+100%

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 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

This is how HD Graphics 2000 and HD 8610G compete in popular games:

  • HD 8610G is 18% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 8610G is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD 8610G is ahead in 27 tests (60%)
  • there's a draw in 18 tests (40%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 1.08
Recency 1 February 2011 23 May 2013

HD 8610G has a 96.4% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

The Radeon HD 8610G 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
AMD Radeon HD 8610G
Radeon HD 8610G

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 1240 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 25 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8610G 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.