Radeon HD 6290 vs HD Graphics 3000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 3000 with Radeon HD 6290, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 3000
2011
0.66
+144%

HD Graphics 3000 outperforms HD 6290 by a whopping 144% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11901351
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data0.98
ArchitectureGeneration 6.0 (2011)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameSandy Bridge GT2+Cedar
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 February 2011 (13 years ago)4 December 2011 (13 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 cores9680
Core clock speed650 MHz650 MHz
Boost clock speed1300 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors1,160 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown19 Watt
Texture fill rate15.605.200
Floating-point processing power0.2496 TFLOPS0.104 TFLOPS
ROPs24
TMUs128

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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data12.8 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent1x DVI, 1x HDMI
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model4.15.0
OpenGL3.14.4
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/AN/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. 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.

HD Graphics 3000 0.66
+144%
HD 6290 0.27

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.

HD Graphics 3000 254
+144%
HD 6290 104

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.

HD Graphics 3000 1568
+215%
HD 6290 497

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 HD9
+50%
6
−50%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 3
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Fortnite 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
World of Tanks 11
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 7
+250%
2−3
−250%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
World of Tanks 2−3 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 1−2 0−1

This is how HD Graphics 3000 and HD 6290 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 3000 is 50% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD Graphics 3000 is 300% faster.
  • in World of Tanks, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6290 is 9% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 3000 is ahead in 17 tests (55%)
  • HD 6290 is ahead in 1 test (3%)
  • there's a draw in 13 tests (42%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.66 0.27
Recency 1 February 2011 4 December 2011
Chip lithography 32 nm 40 nm

HD Graphics 3000 has a 144.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.

HD 6290, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 months.

The HD Graphics 3000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6290 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 3000 is a notebook card while Radeon HD 6290 is a desktop 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.


Intel HD Graphics 3000
HD Graphics 3000
AMD Radeon HD 6290
Radeon HD 6290

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.


2.8 2504 votes

Rate HD Graphics 3000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 46 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6290 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.