UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) vs GRID M3-3020

GRID M3-3020 GRID M10-8Q GRID M40 NVS 810 Quadro K620 Quadro K1200 Quadro K2200 Tesla M10
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 GRID M3-3020 with UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU), including specs and performance data.

GRID M3-3020
2016
4 GB GDDR5
7.48
+454%

GRID M3-3020 outperforms UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) by a whopping 454% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

GRID M3-3020 GRID M3-3020
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5311016
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data9.53
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Gen. 11 (2021)
GPU code nameGM107Gen. 11
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date18 May 2016 (8 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 cores64024
Core clock speed1033 MHz350 MHz
Boost clock speed1306 MHz800 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data4.8 - 10 Watt
Texture fill rate52.24no data
Floating-point processing power1.672 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs40no 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16no data
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1300 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth83.2 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 ConnectorsNo outputsno 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.

DirectX12 (11_0)12_1
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.1.126-
CUDA5.0-

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 HD40−45
+400%
8
−400%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

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

Full HD
High Preset

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

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

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

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 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+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 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how GRID M3-3020 and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) compete in popular games:

  • GRID M3-3020 is 400% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 42 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 7.48 1.35
Recency 18 May 2016 11 January 2021
Chip lithography 28 nm 10 nm

GRID M3-3020 has a 454.1% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The GRID M3-3020 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) in performance tests.

Be aware that GRID M3-3020 is a workstation card while UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) 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 GRID M3-3020
GRID M3-3020
Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 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.

GRID M3-3020 GRID M3 3020
vs
FirePro W5000 FirePro W5000
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)
vs
GT 435M GeForce GT 435M
GRID M3-3020 GRID M3 3020
vs
FirePro W5100 FirePro W5100
Quadro P620 P620
vs
HD Graphics P3000 HD Graphics P3000
Quadro P620 P620
vs
R7 350 Fake Card R7 350 Fake Card
Quadro P620 P620
vs
P5000 X2 Mobile P5000 X2 Mobile
Quadro P620 P620
vs
Tesla P6 Mobile Tesla P6 Mobile
Quadro P620 P620
vs
RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation RTX 2000 Embedded Ada Generation
GRID M60-4A GRID M60 4A
vs
Nvidia RTX 1000 Ada Generation Mobile RTX 1000 Ada Generation Mobile
Pro Vega 56 Pro Vega 56
vs
RTX 4080 Mobile RTX 4080 Mobile
Pro Vega 56 Pro Vega 56
vs
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile RTX 3050 6GB Mobile
Pro Vega 64 Pro Vega 64
vs
GT 740 GT 740
R7 350 R7 350
vs
R9 370 1024SP R9 370 1024SP

Community ratings

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

5 1 vote

Rate GRID M3-3020 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 121 vote

Rate UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) 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.