Intel HD Graphics 500 vs NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 500 and NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290 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).
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 500
- Videocard is newer: launch date 7 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- 2.5x more texture fill rate: 9 GTexel / s vs 3.67 GTexel / s
- 4.9x better floating-point performance: 144.0 gflops vs 29.376 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 80 nm
- 3.5x lower typical power consumption: 6 Watt vs 21 Watt
- 32x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 256 MB
- Around 31% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 299 vs 228
- Around 70% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 80 vs 47
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1122 vs 499
- 2.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1122 vs 499
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 1 September 2015 vs 4 October 2007 |
| Texture fill rate | 9 GTexel / s vs 3.67 GTexel / s |
| Floating-point performance | 144.0 gflops vs 29.376 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 80 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 6 Watt vs 21 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 8 GB vs 256 MB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 299 vs 228 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 80 vs 47 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1122 vs 499 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1122 vs 499 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
- 2.3x more core clock speed: 459 MHz vs 200 MHz
- Around 33% higher pipelines: 16 vs 12
| Core clock speed | 459 MHz vs 200 MHz |
| Pipelines | 16 vs 12 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 500
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel HD Graphics 500 | NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 299 | 228 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 80 | 47 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 907 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 3.525 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 35.665 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.215 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 2.987 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 4.154 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 488 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 579 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1122 | 499 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 488 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 579 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1122 | 499 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel HD Graphics 500 | NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 | Tesla |
| Code name | Apollo Lake GT1 | G86 |
| Launch date | 1 September 2015 | 4 October 2007 |
| Place in performance rating | 1652 | 1656 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | |
| Price now | $37 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 3.22 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 750 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 459 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 144.0 gflops | 29.376 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 80 nm |
| Pipelines | 12 | 16 |
| Texture fill rate | 9 GTexel / s | 3.67 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 6 Watt | 21 Watt |
| Transistor count | 189 million | 210 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DMS-59 |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 10.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory type | DDR3L / LPDDR3 / LPDDR4 | DDR2 |
| Shared memory | 1 | |
| Memory bandwidth | 6.4 GB / s | |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare Intel HD Graphics 500 with others
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 8600M GS
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 570M
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 7100 + nForce 630i
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIAGeForce G103M
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
NVIDIANVS 300
IntelHD Graphics 500 vs
IntelHD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)
