UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) vs HD Graphics 3000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 3000 HD Graphics 4000 HD Graphics 4200 HD Graphics 4400 HD Graphics 4600 HD Graphics 5000 HD Graphics 5300 HD Graphics 5500 HD Graphics 5600 HD Graphics 6000
VS
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) UHD Graphics G1 UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) UHD Graphics G7 (Lakefield GT2 64 EU) UHD Graphics P630 UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) UHD Graphics Xe 24EUs UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 3000 and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD Graphics 3000
2011
0.65

UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by a whopping 246% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

HD Graphics 3000 HD Graphics 3000
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1197863
Place by popularity93not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data15.73
ArchitectureGeneration 6.0 (2011)Gen. 11 (2021)
GPU code nameSandy Bridge GT2+Gen. 11
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 February 2011 (14 years ago)11 January 2021 (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 cores9624
Core clock speed650 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speed1300 MHz800 MHz
Number of transistors1,160 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology32 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown4.8 - 10 Watt
Texture fill rate15.60no data
Floating-point processing power0.2496 TFLOPSno data
ROPs2no data
TMUs12no data

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).

InterfaceRing Busno data

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 Sharedno data
Maximum RAM amountSystem Sharedno data
Memory bus widthSystem Sharedno data
Memory clock speedSystem Sharedno data
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 data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12_1
Shader Model4.1no data
OpenGL3.1no data
OpenCLN/Ano data
VulkanN/A-

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.

HD Graphics 3000 0.65
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) 2.25
+246%

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.

HD Graphics 3000 2503
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) 8388
+235%

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
−44.4%
13
+44.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−175%
10−12
+175%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
Valorant 27−30
−37.9%
40−45
+37.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 11
−291%
40−45
+291%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Dota 2 8
−113%
17
+113%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−175%
10−12
+175%
Metro Exodus 0−1 3−4
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−100%
8
+100%
Valorant 27−30
−37.9%
40−45
+37.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
Dota 2 7
−129%
16
+129%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−175%
10−12
+175%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−37.5%
10−12
+37.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4
+0%
Valorant 27−30
−37.9%
40−45
+37.9%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−650%
14−16
+650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−400%
14−16
+400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 1−2
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 2−3
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 4−5
−175%
10−12
+175%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how HD Graphics 3000 and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) is 44% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) is 650% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) is ahead in 33 tests (60%)
  • there's a draw in 22 tests (40%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.65 2.25
Recency 1 February 2011 11 January 2021
Chip lithography 32 nm 10 nm

UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) has a 246.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 220% more advanced lithography process.

The UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 3000 in performance tests.

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
Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU)
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU)
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

HD Graphics 3000 HD Graphics 3000
vs
HD 6450M Radeon HD 6450M
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU)
vs
UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H)
HD Graphics 3000 HD Graphics 3000
vs
R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L)
RTX 3050 Ti Mobile RTX 3050 Ti Mobile
vs
R9 280 R9 280
UHD Graphics UHD Graphics
vs
ATI HD 4850 HD 4850
HD 8250 HD 8250
vs
NVS 3100M NVS 3100M
Iris Xe MAX Graphics Iris Xe MAX Graphics
vs
HD Graphics 4600 HD Graphics 4600
RTX 3080 Ti RTX 3080 Ti
vs
GeForce MX350 MX350
RTX A5000-8Q RTX A5000 8Q
vs
Quadro P2000 P2000
Vega 7 Vega 7
vs
HD Graphics 500 HD Graphics 500
RX 7900 XTX RX 7900 XTX
vs
Arc A310 Arc A310
HD 6570M HD 6570M
vs
GT 635M GT 635M
8800 GT 8800 GT
vs
R9 270X R9 270X

Community ratings

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

2.8 2529 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 58 votes

Rate UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about HD Graphics 3000 or UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.