Intel HD Graphics 4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 4000 and NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT 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, 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 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 4000
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 9 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 65 nm
- 2.3x lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 105 Watt
- 3.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 194 vs 56
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 14 May 2012 vs 21 July 2008 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm vs 65 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt vs 105 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 vs 56 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
- 2.3x more core clock speed: 1500 MHz vs 650 MHz
- 8x more texture fill rate: 33.6 billion / sec vs 4.2 GTexel / s
- 7x more pipelines: 112 vs 16
- 10x better floating-point performance: 336.0 gflops vs 33.6 gflops
- Around 31% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 454 vs 347
- Around 91% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2845 vs 1492
- Around 38% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3304 vs 2392
- Around 91% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2845 vs 1492
- Around 38% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3304 vs 2392
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1500 MHz vs 650 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 33.6 billion / sec vs 4.2 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 112 vs 16 |
| Floating-point performance | 336.0 gflops vs 33.6 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 454 vs 347 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2845 vs 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3304 vs 2392 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2845 vs 1492 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3304 vs 2392 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel HD Graphics 4000 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 347 | 454 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 | 56 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 538 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.712 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 155.638 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.931 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 7.36 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 12.009 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 754 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1492 | 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2392 | 3304 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 754 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1492 | 2845 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2392 | 3304 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel HD Graphics 4000 | NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 7.0 | Tesla |
| Code name | Ivy Bridge GT2 | G92 |
| Launch date | 14 May 2012 | 21 July 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 1501 | 1063 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $160 | |
| Price now | $103.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 8.86 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 33.6 gflops | 336.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 65 nm |
| Pipelines | 16 | 112 |
| Texture fill rate | 4.2 GTexel / s | 33.6 billion / sec |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 105 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,200 million | 754 million |
| CUDA cores | 112 | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video, HDTVDual Link DVI |
| Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
| Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 9" (22.9 cm) | |
| SLI options | 2-way | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 11.1 (11_0) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.0 | 2.1 |
Memory |
||
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Shared memory | 1 | |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.6 GB / s | |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare Intel HD Graphics 4000 with others
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 550M
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 540M
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAQuadro 3000M
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 620M
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
AMDRadeon HD 7480D
IntelHD Graphics 4000 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 660M Mac Edition
