Quadro K1000M vs HD Graphics 3000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 3000 with Quadro K1000M, including specs and performance data.
K1000M outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by a whopping 204% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1200 | 903 |
| Place by popularity | 93 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.50 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 3.06 |
| Architecture | Generation 6.0 (2011) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Sandy Bridge GT2+ | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 1 June 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $119.90 |
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 | 96 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,160 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 15.60 | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2496 TFLOPS | 0.3264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 16 |
| TMUs | 12 | 16 |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | Ring Bus | MXM-A (3.0) |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 28.8 GB/s |
| 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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 Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| 900p | 2−3
−350%
| 9
+350%
|
| Full HD | 9
−100%
| 18
+100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 6.66 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−31%
|
35−40
+31%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 11
−255%
|
35−40
+255%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 8
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−31%
|
35−40
+31%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−37.5%
|
10−12
+37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−31%
|
35−40
+31%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how HD Graphics 3000 and K1000M compete in popular games:
- K1000M is 350% faster in 900p
- K1000M is 100% 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 K1000M is 550% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- K1000M is ahead in 31 test (61%)
- there's a draw in 20 tests (39%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.57 | 1.73 |
| Recency | 1 February 2011 | 1 June 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
K1000M has a 203.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro K1000M 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 K1000M 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.
