In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the Intel HD Graphics 2000 Desktop are significantly better than the AMD Radeon X1050.

The Graphics 2000 has a 450 MHz higher core clock speed than the Radeon X1050, but the Radeon X1050 has 3 more Texture Mapping Units than the Graphics 2000. As a result, the Radeon X1050 exhibits a 0.7 GTexel/s better Texture Fill Rate than the Graphics 2000. Neither of these GPUs support DirectX 10 or higher, so Texture Rate holds more weight than when comparing more modern GPUs.

The Graphics 2000 has a 450 MHz higher core clock speed than the Radeon X1050, but the Radeon X1050 has 3 more Render Output Units than the Graphics 2000. As a result, the Radeon X1050 exhibits a 0.7 GPixel/s better Pixel Fill Rate than the Graphics 2000. However, both GPUs support DirectX 9 or above, and pixeling performance is only really relevant when comparing older cards.

The Graphics 2000 was released over three years more recently than the Radeon X1050, and so the Graphics 2000 is likely to have far better driver support, meaning it will be much more optimized and ultimately superior to the Radeon X1050 when running the latest games.

Both GPUs exhibit very poor performance, so rather than upgrading from one to the other you should consider looking at more powerful GPUs. Neither of these will be able to run the latest games in any playable way.

The Radeon X1050 has 128 MB video memory, but the Graphics 2000 does not have an entry, so the two GPUs cannot be reliably compared in this area.

The HD Graphics 2000 Desktop has 6 Shader Processing Units and the Radeon X1050 has 4. However, the actual shader performance of the Graphics 2000 is 32 and the actual shader performance of the Radeon X1050 is 1. The Graphics 2000 having 31 better shader performance and an altogether better performance when taking into account other relevant data means that the Graphics 2000 delivers a marginally smoother and more efficient experience when processing graphical data than the Radeon X1050.

The Graphics 2000 transistor size technology is 78 nm (nanometers) smaller than the Radeon X1050. This means that the Graphics 2000 is expected to run massively cooler and achieve higher clock frequencies than the Radeon X1050. While they exhibit similar graphical performance, the Graphics 2000 should consume less power than the Radeon X1050.

The HD Graphics 2000 Desktop requires 95 Watts to run and the Radeon X1050 requires 24 Watts. We would recommend a PSU with at least 300 Watts for the Graphics 2000 and a PSU with at least 300 Watts for the Radeon X1050. The Graphics 2000 requires 71 Watts more than the Radeon X1050 to run. The difference is significant enough that the Graphics 2000 may have an adverse affect on your yearly electricity bills in comparison to the Radeon X1050.