HD Graphics 3000 vs Radeon RX 560 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 560 Mobile and HD Graphics 3000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 560 Mobile outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by a whopping 1593% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 432 | 1200 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 96 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.67 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.86 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Generation 6.0 (2011) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | Sandy Bridge GT2+ |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 1 February 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 896 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1175 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1275 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,160 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 58.97 | 15.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.887 TFLOPS | 0.2496 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 2 |
| TMUs | 56 | 12 |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | Ring Bus |
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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/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.
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 | 43
+378%
| 9
−378%
|
| 4K | 36
+1700%
| 2−3
−1700%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.33 | no data |
| 4K | 2.78 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+1800%
|
3−4
−1800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+1800%
|
3−4
−1800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Fortnite | 87
+1640%
|
5−6
−1640%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
+513%
|
8−9
−513%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+234%
|
27−30
−234%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+1800%
|
3−4
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+1309%
|
11
−1309%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+813%
|
8
−813%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+2000%
|
3−4
−2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+463%
|
8−9
−463%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+234%
|
27−30
−234%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+943%
|
7
−943%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+234%
|
27−30
−234%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50
+2400%
|
2−3
−2400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+3900%
|
2−3
−3900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+883%
|
6−7
−883%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1817%
|
6−7
−1817%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+40%
|
14−16
−40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 55−60
+1300%
|
4−5
−1300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 36
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
This is how RX 560 Mobile and HD Graphics 3000 compete in popular games:
- RX 560 Mobile is 378% faster in 1080p
- RX 560 Mobile is 1700% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 560 Mobile is 3900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 560 Mobile surpassed HD Graphics 3000 in all 31 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.65 | 0.57 |
| Recency | 5 January 2017 | 1 February 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
RX 560 Mobile has a 1593% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 128.6% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 560 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 3000 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
