NVS 2100M vs HD Graphics 6000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 6000 with NVS 2100M, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 6000
2014
15 Watt
2.21
+514%

HD Graphics 6000 outperforms NVS 2100M by a whopping 514% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8611281
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency10.142.25
ArchitectureGeneration 8.0 (2014−2015)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameBroadwell GT3GT218
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date5 September 2014 (10 years ago)7 January 2010 (15 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 cores38416
Core clock speed300 MHz535 MHz
Boost clock speed950 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt11 Watt
Texture fill rate45.604.280
Floating-point processing power0.7296 TFLOPS0.03936 TFLOPS
ROPs64
TMUs488

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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 2.0 x16

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 Shared512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared790 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data12.64 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

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

DirectX12 (11_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.43.3
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan+N/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 6000 2.21
+514%
NVS 2100M 0.36

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 6000 849
+511%
NVS 2100M 139

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 6000 6188
+524%
NVS 2100M 992

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 HD13
+550%
2−3
−550%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Elden Ring 3−4 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Dota 2 6 0−1
Elden Ring 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 12
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Fortnite 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6 0−1
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+200%
7−8
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
World of Tanks 40−45
+223%
12−14
−223%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Dota 2 15
+650%
2−3
−650%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+100%
7−8
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+200%
7−8
−200%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
World of Tanks 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Valorant 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Elden Ring 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Fortnite 1−2 0−1
Valorant 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

This is how HD Graphics 6000 and NVS 2100M compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 6000 is 550% faster in 1080p

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

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD Graphics 6000 is 650% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the NVS 2100M is 67% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 6000 is ahead in 27 tests (84%)
  • NVS 2100M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
  • there's a draw in 4 tests (13%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.21 0.36
Recency 5 September 2014 7 January 2010
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 11 Watt

HD Graphics 6000 has a 513.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 2100M, on the other hand, has 36.4% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 2100M in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 6000 is a notebook graphics card while NVS 2100M 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 6000
HD Graphics 6000
NVIDIA NVS 2100M
NVS 2100M

Other comparisons

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.


3.2 263 votes

Rate HD Graphics 6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 9 votes

Rate NVS 2100M 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.