HD Graphics 2000 vs Radeon RX 480
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 480 with HD Graphics 2000, including specs and performance data.
RX 480 outperforms HD Graphics 2000 by a whopping 3964% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 260 | 1230 |
| Place by popularity | 89 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.86 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 10.21 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Generation 6.0 (2011) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | Sandy Bridge GT1 |
| GCN generation | 4th Gen | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 29 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 1 February 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2304 | 48 |
| Compute units | 36 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1120 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1266 MHz | 1350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 182.3 | 8.100 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.834 TFLOPS | 0.1296 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 1 |
| TMUs | 144 | 6 |
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).
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 8000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | 2.0 | - |
| DisplayPort support | 1.4HDR | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | n/a | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| Enduro | n/a | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | n/a | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | n/a | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | 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.
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.
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 | 77
+600%
| 11
−600%
|
| 1440p | 53
+5200%
| 1−2
−5200%
|
| 4K | 36 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.97 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.32 | no data |
| 4K | 6.36 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 55−60
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 55−60
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+7000%
|
1−2
−7000%
|
| Fortnite | 207
+4040%
|
5−6
−4040%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100
+2400%
|
4−5
−2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+1043%
|
7−8
−1043%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+439%
|
27−30
−439%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 55−60
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 285
+1576%
|
16−18
−1576%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+936%
|
10−12
−936%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+7000%
|
1−2
−7000%
|
| Fortnite | 79
+7800%
|
1−2
−7800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 93
+2225%
|
4−5
−2225%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 78
+7700%
|
1−2
−7700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 41 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+1043%
|
7−8
−1043%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 78
+1850%
|
4−5
−1850%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+439%
|
27−30
−439%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+4150%
|
2−3
−4150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 29
+314%
|
7−8
−314%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+2150%
|
2−3
−2150%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+936%
|
10−12
−936%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+7000%
|
1−2
−7000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 77
+1825%
|
4−5
−1825%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+439%
|
27−30
−439%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+14900%
|
1−2
−14900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+5700%
|
3−4
−5700%
|
| Valorant | 241
+4720%
|
5−6
−4720%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+5200%
|
1−2
−5200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 39
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
+140%
|
14−16
−140%
|
| Metro Exodus | 15 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 120
+3900%
|
3−4
−3900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 88
+4300%
|
2−3
−4300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
This is how RX 480 and HD Graphics 2000 compete in popular games:
- RX 480 is 600% faster in 1080p
- RX 480 is 5200% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 480 is 14900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 480 surpassed HD Graphics 2000 in all 35 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.35 | 0.55 |
| Recency | 29 June 2016 | 1 February 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
RX 480 has a 3963.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 480 is a desktop card while HD Graphics 2000 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
