Quadro T500 Mobile vs HD Graphics 3000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 3000 with Quadro T500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T500 Mobile outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by a whopping 1265% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1190 | 486 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 34.46 |
| Architecture | Generation 6.0 (2011) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Sandy Bridge GT2+ | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 February 2011 (13 years ago) | 2 December 2020 (4 years ago) |
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 cores | 96 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 1365 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz | 1695 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,160 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 15.60 | 94.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2496 TFLOPS | 3.037 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 32 |
| TMUs | 12 | 56 |
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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
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 type | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 80 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 HD | 9
−300%
| 36
+300%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−1400%
| 15
+1400%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−1600%
| 17
+1600%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−1233%
|
120−130
+1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−1233%
|
120−130
+1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−300%
|
8
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−1233%
|
120−130
+1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 3
−2900%
|
90
+2900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−250%
|
28
+250%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−5200%
|
50−55
+5200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−689%
|
70−75
+689%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−460%
|
28
+460%
|
| World of Tanks | 11
−1109%
|
130−140
+1109%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−1233%
|
120−130
+1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−971%
|
75
+971%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−238%
|
27
+238%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−500%
|
35−40
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−689%
|
70−75
+689%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−1150%
|
50−55
+1150%
|
| World of Tanks | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−1233%
|
120−130
+1233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−1200%
|
65−70
+1200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1233%
|
200−210
+1233%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14
−7.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−26.7%
|
18−20
+26.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−86.7%
|
28
+86.7%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Elden Ring | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Elden Ring | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Elden Ring | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how HD Graphics 3000 and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T500 Mobile is 300% faster in 1080p
- T500 Mobile is 1400% faster in 1440p
- T500 Mobile is 1600% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the HD Graphics 3000 is 7% faster.
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the T500 Mobile is 5200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD Graphics 3000 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- T500 Mobile is ahead in 23 tests (41%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (57%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.66 | 9.01 |
| Recency | 1 February 2011 | 2 December 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 12 nm |
T500 Mobile has a 1265.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro T500 Mobile 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 T500 Mobile 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
