Intel HD Graphics 4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro 600

Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 4000 and NVIDIA Quadro 600 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) 5 month(s) later
• Around 2% higher core clock speed: 650 MHz vs 640 MHz
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 40 nm
• Around 55% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 8.712 vs 5.617
• Around 77% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 0.931 vs 0.526
• Around 19% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1492 vs 1255
• Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2392 vs 2037
• Around 19% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1492 vs 1255
• Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2392 vs 2037

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 600

• 2.4x more texture fill rate: 10.24 GTexel / s vs 4.2 GTexel / s
• 6x more pipelines: 96 vs 16
• 7.3x better floating-point performance: 245.76 gflops vs 33.6 gflops
• Around 13% lower typical power consumption: 40 Watt vs 45 Watt
• Around 52% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 526 vs 347
• Around 20% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 232 vs 194
• 3.9x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 2100 vs 538
• Around 19% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 185.752 vs 155.638
• Around 23% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 9.023 vs 7.36
• Around 34% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 16.137 vs 12.009
• Around 19% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 899 vs 754
• Around 19% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 899 vs 754

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 4000
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 600

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	347 526
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	194 232
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	538 2100
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	8.712 5.617
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	155.638 185.752
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	0.931 0.526
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7.36 9.023
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	12.009 16.137
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	754 899
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1492 1255
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2392 2037
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	754 899
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1492 1255
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2392 2037

Compare specifications (specs)