Quadro FX 3450 vs HD Graphics 4000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 4000 with Quadro FX 3450, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 4000
2012
1.18
+211%

HD Graphics 4000 outperforms FX 3450 by a whopping 211% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10681265
Place by popularity45not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency1.810.32
ArchitectureGeneration 7.0 (2012−2013)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameIvy Bridge GT2NV41
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date14 May 2012 (12 years ago)28 July 2005 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$135.75

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores128no data
Core clock speed650 MHz425 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,200 million190 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown83 Watt
Texture fill rate16.005.100
Floating-point processing power0.256 TFLOPSno data
ROPs28
TMUs1612

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 1.0 x16
Lengthno data226 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-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 SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared256 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data32 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 Dependent2x DVI, 1x S-Video

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (11_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.03.0
OpenGL4.02.0 (full) 2.1 (partial)
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan+N/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 4000 1.18
+211%
FX 3450 0.38

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
+207%
FX 3450 148

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
+300%
3−4
−300%
Full HD11
+267%
3−4
−267%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data45.25

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 6
+500%
1−2
−500%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Fortnite 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
World of Tanks 21
+250%
6−7
−250%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Valorant 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Valorant 1−2 0−1

This is how HD Graphics 4000 and FX 3450 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 4000 is 300% faster in 900p
  • HD Graphics 4000 is 267% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.18 0.38
Recency 14 May 2012 28 July 2005
Chip lithography 22 nm 130 nm

HD Graphics 4000 has a 210.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 490.9% more advanced lithography process.

The HD Graphics 4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 3450 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 4000 is a notebook card while Quadro FX 3450 is a workstation 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 4000
HD Graphics 4000
NVIDIA Quadro FX 3450
Quadro FX 3450

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 5356 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 10 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3450 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.