UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) 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

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 2000 with UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake), including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 2000
2011
0.55

UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 505% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 2000
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1230750
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGeneration 6.0 (2011)Gen. 12 (2021−2023)
GPU code nameSandy Bridge GT1Rocket Lake Xe
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 February 2011 (14 years ago)30 March 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 cores4832
Core clock speed850 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speed1350 MHz1450 MHz
Number of transistors189 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology32 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknownno data
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).

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 Sharedno data
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

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12_1
Shader Model4.1no data
OpenGL3.1no data
OpenCLN/Ano data
VulkanN/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.

HD Graphics 2000 0.55
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) 3.33
+505%

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
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) 5134
+473%

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
−72.7%
19
+72.7%
1440p2−3
−700%
16
+700%
4K1−2
−800%
9
+800%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−275%
14−16
+275%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−100%
14−16
+100%
Valorant 27−30
−129%
64
+129%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−300%
8−9
+300%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−241%
55−60
+241%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Dota 2 10−12
−218%
35
+218%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−275%
14−16
+275%
Metro Exodus 0−1 6
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−100%
14−16
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Valorant 27−30
−82.1%
51
+82.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Dota 2 10−12
−191%
32
+191%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−275%
14−16
+275%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−100%
14−16
+100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−150%
10−11
+150%
Valorant 27−30
−71.4%
45−50
+71.4%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 1−2
−2200%
21−24
+2200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−667%
21−24
+667%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 2−3
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 2−3
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
Valorant 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 36
+0%
36
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how HD Graphics 2000 and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) is 73% faster in 1080p
  • UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) is 700% faster in 1440p
  • UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) is 800% faster in 4K

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

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) is 2200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) is ahead in 35 tests (60%)
  • there's a draw in 23 tests (40%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.55 3.33
Recency 1 February 2011 30 March 2021
Chip lithography 32 nm 14 nm

UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) has a 505.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.

The UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 2000 is a notebook card while UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) is a desktop one.

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 UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake)
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake)
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 240M GeForce GT 240M
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake)
vs
GTS 450 GeForce GTS 450
HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 2000
vs
HD 8250 Radeon HD 8250
HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 2000
vs
HD 7420G Radeon HD 7420G
HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 2000
vs
HD 8280 Radeon HD 8280
HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 2000
vs
HD 6380G Radeon HD 6380G
HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 2000
vs
i740 Graphics i740 Graphics
HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 2000
vs
UHD Graphics P750 UHD Graphics P750
HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 2000
vs
Apple M2 Max 38-Core GPU M2 Max 38-Core GPU
HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 2000
vs
Apple M4 20-core GPU M4 20 core GPU
HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
vs
R2 Graphics Radeon R2 Graphics
HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
vs
R3 Graphics Radeon R3 Graphics
HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
vs
R7 Graphics Radeon R7 Graphics

Community ratings

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

2.7 1367 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 8 votes

Rate UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake) 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 UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs (Rocket Lake), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.