Quadro P500 vs HD Graphics 3000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 3000 with Quadro P500, including specs and performance data.
P500 outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by a whopping 549% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1278 | 759 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 17.01 |
| Architecture | Generation 6.0 (2011) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Sandy Bridge GT2+ | GP108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 February 2011 (15 years ago) | 5 January 2018 (8 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 1455 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz | 1518 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,160 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 15.60 | 24.29 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2496 TFLOPS | 0.7772 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 16 |
| TMUs | 12 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
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 | large |
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 40.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
API and SDK support
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 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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
−122%
| 20
+122%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−92.9%
|
50−55
+92.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 11
−545%
|
70−75
+545%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 8
−513%
|
49
+513%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−133%
|
14
+133%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−92.9%
|
50−55
+92.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−543%
|
45
+543%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−92.9%
|
50−55
+92.9%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−900%
|
30−33
+900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−433%
|
30−35
+433%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 7−8 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how HD Graphics 3000 and Quadro P500 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P500 is 122% 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 Quadro P500 is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P500 performs better in 28 tests (54%)
- there's a draw in 24 tests (46%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.61 | 3.96 |
| Recency | 1 February 2011 | 5 January 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
Quadro P500 has a 549% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 129% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P500 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 P500 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
