UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) vs HD Graphics 2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 2000 and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 260% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1222 | 897 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Gen. 6 Sandy Bridge (2011) | Gen. 11 (2021) |
| GPU code name | Sandy Bridge | Gen. 11 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 February 2011 (13 years ago) | 11 January 2021 (3 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 | 6 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 850/1100 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1350 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 4.8 - 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.100 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1296 gflops | 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).
| 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.
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | no data |
| OpenCL | N/A | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
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.
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.
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
+37.5%
| 8
−37.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−25%
|
35−40
+25%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−113%
|
16−18
+113%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−125%
|
9
+125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−25%
|
35−40
+25%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6
−33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−225%
|
13
+225%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+200%
|
3
−200%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 27−30
−25%
|
35−40
+25%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how HD Graphics 2000 and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics 2000 is 38% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD Graphics 2000 is 200% faster.
- in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) is 225% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD Graphics 2000 is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
- UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) is ahead in 27 tests (53%)
- there's a draw in 22 tests (43%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.55 | 1.98 |
| Recency | 1 February 2011 | 11 January 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 10 nm |
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) has a 260% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.
The UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
