GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB vs HD Graphics 4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 4000 with GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 4000
2012
1.18

RTX 3050 8 GB outperforms HD Graphics 4000 by a whopping 2674% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1077171
Place by popularity4912
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data68.65
Power efficiency1.8017.29
ArchitectureGeneration 7.0 (2012−2013)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameIvy Bridge GT2GA106
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date14 May 2012 (12 years ago)4 January 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores1282560
Core clock speed650 MHz1552 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1777 MHz
Number of transistors1,200 million12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown130 Watt
Texture fill rate16.00142.2
Floating-point processing power0.256 TFLOPS9.098 TFLOPS
ROPs232
TMUs1680
Tensor Coresno data80
Ray Tracing Coresno data20

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 4.0 x8
Lengthno data242 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared8 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data224.0 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 HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.6
OpenGL4.04.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan+1.3
CUDA-8.6
DLSS-+

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.

HD Graphics 4000 1.18
RTX 3050 8 GB 32.73
+2674%

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 4000 454
RTX 3050 8 GB 12612
+2678%

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:

900p12
−2400%
300−350
+2400%
Full HD11
−2627%
300−350
+2627%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data0.83

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−2650%
220−230
+2650%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−2650%
220−230
+2650%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%
Fortnite 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−2567%
160−170
+2567%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−2567%
240−250
+2567%
Valorant 30−35
−2627%
900−950
+2627%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−2650%
220−230
+2650%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21
−2519%
550−600
+2519%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%
Dota 2 17
−2547%
450−500
+2547%
Fortnite 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−2567%
160−170
+2567%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−2567%
240−250
+2567%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−2500%
130−140
+2500%
Valorant 30−35
−2627%
900−950
+2627%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−2650%
220−230
+2650%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%
Dota 2 16−18
−2400%
400−450
+2400%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−2567%
160−170
+2567%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−2567%
240−250
+2567%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−2500%
130−140
+2500%
Valorant 30−35
−2627%
900−950
+2627%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 6−7
−2567%
160−170
+2567%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−2614%
190−200
+2614%
Valorant 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2567%
80−85
+2567%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−2567%
400−450
+2567%
Valorant 6−7
−2567%
160−170
+2567%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%

This is how HD Graphics 4000 and RTX 3050 8 GB compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3050 8 GB is 2400% faster in 900p
  • RTX 3050 8 GB is 2627% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.18 32.73
Recency 14 May 2012 4 January 2022
Chip lithography 22 nm 8 nm

RTX 3050 8 GB has a 2673.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 175% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 4000 is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB is a desktop one.

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 4000
HD Graphics 4000
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB
GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB

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.


3.1 5422 votes

Rate HD Graphics 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 13738 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about HD Graphics 4000 or GeForce RTX 3050 8 GB, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.