Intel HD Graphics 3000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 3000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 3000
- Around 26% higher core clock speed: 850 MHz vs 672 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 32 nm vs 40 nm
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz vs 672 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm vs 40 nm |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
- 3.5x more texture fill rate: 5.9 billion / sec vs 1.7 GTexel / s
- 4x more pipelines: 48 vs 12
- 6.3x better floating-point performance: 129.02 gflops vs 20.4 gflops
- Around 10% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 286 vs 261
- 2.2x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 77 vs 35
- Around 52% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1731 vs 1137
- Around 52% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1731 vs 1137
- 23.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2380 vs 101
- 23.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2380 vs 101
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 5.9 billion / sec vs 1.7 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 48 vs 12 |
| Floating-point performance | 129.02 gflops vs 20.4 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 286 vs 261 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 77 vs 35 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1731 vs 1137 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1731 vs 1137 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2380 vs 101 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2380 vs 101 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 3000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 261 | 286 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 35 | 77 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1137 | 1731 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1137 | 1731 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 101 | 2380 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 101 | 2380 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1313 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 3.237 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 83.376 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.26 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 5.92 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.992 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 536 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 536 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel HD Graphics 3000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 520M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 6.0 | Fermi |
| Code name | Sandy Bridge GT2 | GF108 |
| Launch date | 1 February 2011 | 5 January 2011 |
| Place in performance rating | 1604 | 1558 |
| Type | Laptop | Laptop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59.99 | |
| Price now | $59.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 7.54 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 672 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 20.4 gflops | 129.02 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 12 | 48 |
| Texture fill rate | 1.7 GTexel / s | 5.9 billion / sec |
| Transistor count | 995 million | 585 million |
| CUDA cores | 48 | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 12 Watt | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 10.1 | 12 API |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
Memory |
||
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Shared memory | 1 | 0 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB / s | |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | |
| Memory type | DDR3 | |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Verde Drivers | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare Intel HD Graphics 3000 with others
IntelHD Graphics 3000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 6100 + nForce 405
IntelHD Graphics 3000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 9400M G
IntelHD Graphics 3000 vs
ATIRadeon HD 5450
IntelHD Graphics 3000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 6310
IntelHD Graphics 3000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 520
IntelHD Graphics 3000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640 OEM Rebrand
