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

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 58% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 3764 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

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 510
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 3000M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	622 995
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	162 312
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	2381 3764
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	14.381 10.95
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	215.873 325.007
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1.081 0.865
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	11.675 13.794
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	15.094 27.961
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	902 218
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1333 374
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1786 543
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	902 218
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1333 374
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1786 543

Compare specifications (specs)