HD Graphics 510 vs Quadro K4000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4000 with HD Graphics 510, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K4000
2013
3 GB GDDR5, 80 Watt
7.09
+338%

K4000 outperforms HD Graphics 510 by a whopping 338% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking554962
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.62no data
Power efficiency6.107.43
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 9.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameGK106Skylake GT1
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date1 March 2013 (11 years ago)1 September 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,269 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 cores76896
Core clock speed810 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data900 MHz
Number of transistors2,540 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm+
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate51.8410.80
Floating-point processing power1.244 TFLOPS0.1728 TFLOPS
ROPs243
TMUs6412

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16Ring Bus
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5LPDDR3/DDR4
Maximum RAM amount3 GB32 GB
Memory bus width192 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1404 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth134.8 GB/sno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA3.0-

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 K4000 7.09
+338%
HD Graphics 510 1.62

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 K4000 2723
+338%
HD Graphics 510 621

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
World of Tanks 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
World of Tanks 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 49 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.09 1.62
Recency 1 March 2013 1 September 2015
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 15 Watt

Quadro K4000 has a 337.7% higher aggregate performance score.

HD Graphics 510, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 966.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 433.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 510 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4000 is a workstation card while HD Graphics 510 is a notebook 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 K4000
Quadro K4000
Intel HD Graphics 510
HD Graphics 510

Other comparisons

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.


3.3 197 votes

Rate Quadro K4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 384 votes

Rate HD Graphics 510 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.