Radeon R5 (Carrizo) vs HD Graphics 2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 3000 HD Graphics 4000 HD Graphics 4200 HD Graphics 4400 HD Graphics 4600 HD Graphics 5000 HD Graphics 5300 HD Graphics 5500 HD Graphics 5600 HD Graphics 6000
VS
Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) Radeon R5 (Carrizo) Radeon R5 (Kaveri) Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 2000 and Radeon R5 (Carrizo), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD Graphics 2000
2011
0.48

R5 (Carrizo) outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 229% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 2000
R5 (Carrizo) R5 (Carrizo)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1231931
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data3.57
ArchitectureGeneration 6.0 (2011)GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameSandy Bridge GT1Carrizo
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 February 2011 (14 years ago)4 June 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 cores48256
Core clock speed850 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1350 MHz800 MHz
Number of transistors189 million2410 Million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown12-35 Watt
Texture fill rate8.100no data
Floating-point processing power0.1296 TFLOPSno data
ROPs1no data
TMUs6no 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.

Memory typeSystem Sharedno data
Maximum RAM amountSystem Sharedno data
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64/128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Sharedno 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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model4.1no data
OpenGL3.1no data
OpenCLN/Ano data
VulkanN/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 HD11
−218%
35−40
+218%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Valorant 27−30
−32.1%
35−40
+32.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−112%
35−40
+112%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Dota 2 10−12
−81.8%
20−22
+81.8%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
Metro Exodus 0−1 3−4
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Valorant 27−30
−32.1%
35−40
+32.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Dota 2 10−12
−81.8%
20−22
+81.8%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−125%
9−10
+125%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Valorant 27−30
−32.1%
35−40
+32.1%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 1−2
−1000%
10−12
+1000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−220%
16−18
+220%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 1−2
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 3−4
−200%
9−10
+200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how HD Graphics 2000 and R5 (Carrizo) compete in popular games:

  • R5 (Carrizo) is 218% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 (Carrizo) is 1000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R5 (Carrizo) is ahead in 29 tests (60%)
  • there's a draw in 19 tests (40%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.48 1.58
Recency 1 February 2011 4 June 2015
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm

R5 (Carrizo) has a 229.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R5 (Carrizo) is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2000 in performance tests.

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 R5 (Carrizo)
Radeon R5 (Carrizo)
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 2000
vs
GT 330M GeForce GT 330M
R5 (Carrizo) Radeon R5 (Carrizo)
vs
GT 640M LE GeForce GT 640M LE
HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 2000
vs
GT 240M GeForce GT 240M
UHD Graphics 630 Mobile UHD Graphics 630 Mobile
vs
HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) Graphics (Ivy Bridge)
PRO W7700 AMD PRO W7700
vs
HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) Graphics (Ivy Bridge)
Arc 7-Cores iGPU Intel 7 Cores iGPU
vs
HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) Graphics (Ivy Bridge)
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) Intel 4 Cores iGPU (Arc)
vs
HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge) Graphics (Ivy Bridge)
GT 550M NVIDIA GT 550M
vs
HD Graphics 2000 Graphics 2000
R5 (Kaveri) AMD R5 (Kaveri)
vs
HD Graphics 2000 Graphics 2000
NVS 5200M NVS 5200M
vs
HD Graphics 2000 Graphics 2000
HD 7510M AMD HD 7510M
vs
HD Graphics 2000 Graphics 2000
ATI Mobility HD 4860 Mobility Radeon HD 4860
vs
HD Graphics 2000 Graphics 2000
GTS 150M NVIDIA GTS 150M
vs
HD Graphics 2000 Graphics 2000

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

2.7 1373 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 6 votes

Rate Radeon R5 (Carrizo) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about HD Graphics 2000 or Radeon R5 (Carrizo), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.