Intel HD Graphics 5300 vs NVIDIA Quadro 410
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 5300 and NVIDIA Quadro 410 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, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 5300
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 0 month(s) later
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 2.5x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 38 Watt
- Around 5% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 1520 vs 1446
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 5 September 2014 vs 7 August 2012 |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 38 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1520 vs 1446 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 410
- 7.1x more core clock speed: 706 MHz vs 100 MHz
- 8x more pipelines: 192 vs 24
- Around 13% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 441 vs 392
- Around 22% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 221 vs 181
- Around 30% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 919 vs 709
- Around 30% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 919 vs 709
- Around 89% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1311 vs 693
- Around 89% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1311 vs 693
- Around 10% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1794 vs 1627
- Around 10% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1794 vs 1627
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz vs 100 MHz |
| Pipelines | 192 vs 24 |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 441 vs 392 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 221 vs 181 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 919 vs 709 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 919 vs 709 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1311 vs 693 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1311 vs 693 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1794 vs 1627 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1794 vs 1627 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 5300
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 410
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel HD Graphics 5300 | NVIDIA Quadro 410 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 392 | 441 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 181 | 221 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 1520 | 1446 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 709 | 919 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 709 | 919 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 693 | 1311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 693 | 1311 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1627 | 1794 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1627 | 1794 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 5.393 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 126.006 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 5.685 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 8.847 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel HD Graphics 5300 | NVIDIA Quadro 410 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 8.0 | Kepler |
| Code name | Broadwell GT2 | GK107 |
| Launch date | 5 September 2014 | 7 August 2012 |
| Place in performance rating | 1454 | 1457 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | |
| Price now | $272.28 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 1.70 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 100 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 24 | 192 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 38 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,300 million | 1,270 million |
| Floating-point performance | 271.1 gflops | |
| Texture fill rate | 11.3 GTexel / s | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x1 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 176 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_1) | 12.0 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Shared memory | 1 | |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.26 GB / s | |
| Memory clock speed | 1782 MHz | |
| Memory type | DDR3 | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare Intel HD Graphics 5300 with others
IntelHD Graphics 5300 vs
NVIDIAQuadro 410
IntelHD Graphics 5300 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 735M
IntelHD Graphics 5300 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 750M Mac Edition
IntelHD Graphics 5300 vs
AMDRadeon RX Vega 11 Mobile
IntelHD Graphics 5300 vs
IntelIris Xe Graphics 80EU (Alder Lake)
IntelHD Graphics 5300 vs
AppleA12Z Bionic
