Radeon Pro SSG vs HD Graphics 3000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 3000 with Radeon Pro SSG, including specs and performance data.
Pro SSG outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by a whopping 4200% 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 | 1257 | 249 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.50 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 7.74 |
| Architecture | Generation 6.0 (2011) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Sandy Bridge GT2+ | Fiji |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 26 July 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $9,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,160 million | 8,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 260 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 15.60 | 268.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2496 TFLOPS | 8.602 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 2 | 64 |
| TMUs | 12 | 256 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 4 MB |
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).
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | HBM |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 4096 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 512.0 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 | 1x HDMI 1.4a, 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.170 |
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.
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
−3789%
| 350−400
+3789%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 28.57 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−4100%
|
210−220
+4100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−3650%
|
300−310
+3650%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−4186%
|
1200−1250
+4186%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 11
−3991%
|
450−500
+3991%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
| Dota 2 | 8
−3650%
|
300−310
+3650%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−4100%
|
210−220
+4100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−3650%
|
300−310
+3650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4067%
|
250−260
+4067%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−4186%
|
1200−1250
+4186%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−4186%
|
300−310
+4186%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−4100%
|
210−220
+4100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−3650%
|
300−310
+3650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4067%
|
250−260
+4067%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−4186%
|
1200−1250
+4186%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−4067%
|
250−260
+4067%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−4186%
|
600−650
+4186%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−3900%
|
120−130
+3900%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−4150%
|
85−90
+4150%
|
This is how HD Graphics 3000 and Pro SSG compete in popular games:
- Pro SSG is 3789% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.61 | 26.23 |
| Recency | 1 February 2011 | 26 July 2016 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
Pro SSG has a 4200% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro SSG 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 Radeon Pro SSG is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
