NVIDIA GeForce 800M vs Intel HD Graphics 4000

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 800M and Intel HD Graphics 4000 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 - 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), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 800M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 10 month(s) later
• Around 14% higher core clock speed: 738 MHz vs 650 MHz
• Around 41% higher texture fill rate: 5.904 GTexel / s vs 4.2 GTexel / s
• 3x more pipelines: 48 vs 16
• 4.2x better floating-point performance: 141.7 gflops vs 33.6 gflops
• 3x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 45 Watt
• Around 32% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 457 vs 347
• Around 6% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 203 vs 192
• 2.4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 1303 vs 538
• Around 27% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 15.218 vs 12.009

Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 4000

• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 22 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 77% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 8.712 vs 4.91
• Around 43% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 155.638 vs 109.13
• Around 2% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 7.36 vs 7.249
• Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 754 vs 703
• Around 33% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1492 vs 1123
• Around 49% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2392 vs 1601
• Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 754 vs 703
• Around 33% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1492 vs 1123
• Around 49% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2392 vs 1601

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 800M
GPU 2: Intel HD Graphics 4000

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	457 347
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	203 192
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	1303 538
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4.91 8.712
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	109.13 155.638
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	7.249 7.36
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	15.218 12.009
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	703 754
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1123 1492
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1601 2392
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	703 754
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1123 1492
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1601 2392

Compare specifications (specs)