Intel HD Graphics 4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 320M
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 4000 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 320M 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 2 year(s) 2 month(s) later
- Around 30% higher core clock speed: 650 MHz vs 500 MHz
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 40 nm
- 3.3x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 346 vs 106
- 5.5x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 192 vs 35
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1492 vs 1458
- Around 35% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2392 vs 1774
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1492 vs 1458
- Around 35% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2392 vs 1774
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 14 May 2012 vs 3 March 2010 |
Core clock speed | 650 MHz vs 500 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm vs 40 nm |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 346 vs 106 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 192 vs 35 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1492 vs 1458 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2392 vs 1774 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1492 vs 1458 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2392 vs 1774 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 320M
- Around 90% higher texture fill rate: 8 GTexel / s vs 4.2 GTexel / s
- Around 50% higher pipelines: 24 vs 16
- 2.4x better floating-point performance: 80 gflops vs 33.6 gflops
- 3.2x lower typical power consumption: 14 Watt vs 45 Watt
- 6.1x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 3307 vs 538
Specifications (specs) | |
Texture fill rate | 8 GTexel / s vs 4.2 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 24 vs 16 |
Floating-point performance | 80 gflops vs 33.6 gflops |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 14 Watt vs 45 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3307 vs 538 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 320M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
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 GT 320M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 346 | 106 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 192 | 35 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 538 | 3307 |
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 | 1458 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2392 | 1774 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 754 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1492 | 1458 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2392 | 1774 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
Intel HD Graphics 4000 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 320M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Generation 7.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | Ivy Bridge GT2 | GT216 |
Launch date | 14 May 2012 | 3 March 2010 |
Place in performance rating | 1506 | 1509 |
Type | Laptop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 500 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 33.6 gflops | 80 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 22 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 16 | 24 |
Texture fill rate | 4.2 GTexel / s | 8 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 14 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,200 million | 486 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Laptop size | medium sized | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 11.1 (11_0) | 10.1 |
OpenGL | 4.0 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
Shared memory | 1 | 0 |
Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | |
Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB / s | |
Memory clock speed | 1580 MHz | |
Memory type | DDR3 | |
Technologies |
||
Quick Sync | ||
HybridPower | ||
PCI-E 2.0 |