Intel HD Graphics 4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M

Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 4000 and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M 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 1 year(s) 2 month(s) later
• Around 44% higher core clock speed: 650 MHz vs 450 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 40 nm
• Around 67% lower typical power consumption: 45 Watt vs 75 Watt
• Around 8% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.931 vs 0.865
• 3.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 754 vs 218
• 4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1492 vs 374
• 4.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2392 vs 543
• 3.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 754 vs 218
• 4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1492 vs 374
• 4.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2392 vs 543

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M

• 4.3x more texture fill rate: 18 GTexel / s vs 4.2 GTexel / s
• 15x more pipelines: 240 vs 16
• 12.9x better floating-point performance: 432.0 gflops vs 33.6 gflops
• 2.9x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 998 vs 347
• Around 62% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 315 vs 194
• 7x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 3773 vs 538
• Around 26% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 10.95 vs 8.712
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 325.007 vs 155.638
• Around 87% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 13.794 vs 7.36
• 2.3x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 27.961 vs 12.009

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 3000M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	347 998
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	194 315
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	538 3773
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8.712 10.95
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	155.638 325.007
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	0.931 0.865
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7.36 13.794
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	12.009 27.961
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	754 218
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1492 374
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2392 543
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	754 218
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1492 374
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2392 543

Compare specifications (specs)