HD Graphics 2000 vs Radeon R7 250E

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250E and HD Graphics 2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 250E
2013
1 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
4.37
+695%

R7 250E outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 695% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6651209
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.14no data
Power efficiency5.50no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Generation 6.0 (2011)
GPU code nameCape VerdeSandy Bridge GT1
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date20 December 2013 (10 years ago)1 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores51248
Core clock speed800 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1350 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Wattunknown
Texture fill rate25.608.100
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS0.1296 TFLOPS
ROPs161
TMUs326

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 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1125 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth72 GB/sno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

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
OpenGL4.63.1
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/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 HD85−90
+673%
11
−673%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.28no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

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%

This is how R7 250E and HD Graphics 2000 compete in popular games:

  • R7 250E is 673% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 29 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.37 0.55
Recency 20 December 2013 1 February 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 32 nm

R7 250E has a 694.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R7 250E 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.


AMD Radeon R7 250E
Radeon R7 250E
Intel HD Graphics 2000
HD Graphics 2000

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.


4 23 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250E on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 1270 votes

Rate HD Graphics 2000 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.