HD Graphics vs Quadro 3000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

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

Quadro 3000M
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
2.58
+235%

3000M outperforms HD Graphics by a whopping 235% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8141146
Place by popularitynot in top-10099
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.20no data
Power efficiency2.481.59
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 7.0 (2012−2013)
GPU code nameGF104Ivy Bridge GT1
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date22 February 2011 (13 years ago)1 April 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$398.96 no data

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 cores24048
Core clock speed450 MHz650 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1050 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 million392 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm22 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate18.006.300
Floating-point processing power0.432 TFLOPS0.1008 TFLOPS
ROPs321
TMUs406

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed625 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth80 GB/sno data
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.0
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.1.80
CUDA2.1-

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.

Quadro 3000M 2.58
+235%
HD Graphics 0.77

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.

Quadro 3000M 995
+234%
HD Graphics 298

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 HD44
+267%
12−14
−267%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Hitman 3 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+280%
10−11
−280%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Hitman 3 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+280%
10−11
−280%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Hitman 3 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+300%
5−6
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+333%
3−4
−333%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+280%
10−11
−280%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

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

  • Quadro 3000M is 267% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.58 0.77
Recency 22 February 2011 1 April 2012
Chip lithography 40 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 35 Watt

Quadro 3000M has a 235.1% higher aggregate performance score.

HD Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 81.8% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

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

Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation card while HD Graphics is a desktop 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.


NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
Quadro 3000M
Intel HD Graphics
HD Graphics

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.


3.8 44 votes

Rate Quadro 3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 2035 votes

Rate HD Graphics 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.