Quadro FX 2700M vs HD Graphics 3000

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 3000 with Quadro FX 2700M, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 3000
2011
0.66

FX 2700M outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by a considerable 44% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking11851118
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.02
Power efficiencyno data1.02
ArchitectureGeneration 6.0 (2011)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameSandy Bridge GT2+G94
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date1 February 2011 (13 years ago)14 August 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$99.95

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores9648
Core clock speed650 MHz530 MHz
Boost clock speed1300 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,160 million505 million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown65 Watt
Texture fill rate15.6012.72
Floating-point processing power0.2496 TFLOPS0.1272 TFLOPS
ROPs216
TMUs1224

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfaceRing BusMXM-HE

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeSystem SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared799 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data51.14 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.14.0
OpenGL3.13.3
OpenCLN/A1.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA-1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

HD Graphics 3000 0.66
FX 2700M 0.95
+43.9%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

HD Graphics 3000 254
FX 2700M 366
+44.1%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

HD Graphics 3000 1568
FX 2700M 2799
+78.5%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD9
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data8.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−18.2%
12−14
+18.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−18.2%
12−14
+18.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−18.2%
12−14
+18.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 1−2
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

This is how HD Graphics 3000 and FX 2700M compete in popular games:

  • FX 2700M is 33% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FX 2700M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 2700M is ahead in 17 tests (44%)
  • there's a draw in 22 tests (56%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.66 0.95
Recency 1 February 2011 14 August 2008
Chip lithography 32 nm 65 nm

HD Graphics 3000 has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.

FX 2700M, on the other hand, has a 43.9% higher aggregate performance score.

The Quadro FX 2700M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 3000 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 3000 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 2700M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel HD Graphics 3000
HD Graphics 3000
NVIDIA Quadro FX 2700M
Quadro FX 2700M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8 2395 votes

Rate HD Graphics 3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 9 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2700M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.