Intel HD Graphics 510 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 510 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 510
- Videocard is newer: launch date 4 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 40 nm
- 5x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 75 Watt
- 16x more maximum memory size: 32 GB vs 2 GB
- Around 31% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 14.381 vs 10.95
- Around 25% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 1.081 vs 0.865
- 4.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 902 vs 218
- 3.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1333 vs 374
- 3.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1786 vs 543
- 4.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 902 vs 218
- 3.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1333 vs 374
- 3.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1786 vs 543
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 1 September 2015 vs 22 February 2011 |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 75 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 32 GB vs 2 GB |
Benchmarks | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.381 vs 10.95 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.081 vs 0.865 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 902 vs 218 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1333 vs 374 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1786 vs 543 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 902 vs 218 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1333 vs 374 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1786 vs 543 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
- Around 50% higher core clock speed: 450 MHz vs 300 MHz
- Around 58% higher texture fill rate: 18 GTexel / s vs 11.4 GTexel / s
- 20x more pipelines: 240 vs 12
- 2.4x better floating-point performance: 432.0 gflops vs 182.4 gflops
- Around 60% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 995 vs 622
- Around 93% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 312 vs 162
- Around 60% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 3809 vs 2381
- Around 51% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 325.007 vs 215.873
- Around 18% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 13.794 vs 11.675
- Around 85% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 27.961 vs 15.094
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 450 MHz vs 300 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 18 GTexel / s vs 11.4 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 240 vs 12 |
Floating-point performance | 432.0 gflops vs 182.4 gflops |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 995 vs 622 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 312 vs 162 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 3809 vs 2381 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 325.007 vs 215.873 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 13.794 vs 11.675 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 27.961 vs 15.094 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 510
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
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) |
|
|
Name | Intel HD Graphics 510 | NVIDIA Quadro 3000M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 622 | 995 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 162 | 312 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 2381 | 3809 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.381 | 10.95 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 215.873 | 325.007 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.081 | 0.865 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 11.675 | 13.794 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 15.094 | 27.961 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 902 | 218 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1333 | 374 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1786 | 543 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 902 | 218 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1333 | 374 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1786 | 543 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
Intel HD Graphics 510 | NVIDIA Quadro 3000M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Generation 9.0 | Fermi |
Code name | Skylake GT1 | GF104 |
Launch date | 1 September 2015 | 22 February 2011 |
Place in performance rating | 1502 | 1500 |
Type | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
Launch price (MSRP) | $398.96 | |
Price now | $199.95 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 7.98 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | |
Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 450 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 182.4 gflops | 432.0 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 12 | 240 |
Texture fill rate | 11.4 GTexel / s | 18 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 75 Watt |
Transistor count | 189 million | 1,950 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory type | LPDDR3 / DDR4 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 1 | 0 |
Memory bandwidth | 80.0 GB / s | |
Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
Quick Sync |