Quadro P3000 Max-Q vs HD Graphics 520

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking862not rated
Place by popularity43not in top-100
Power efficiency10.00no data
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameSkylake GT2N17E-Q1 Max-Q
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)1 September 2017 (7 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 cores1921280
Core clock speed300 MHz1075 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHz1240 MHz
Number of transistors189 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate21.60no data
Floating-point processing power0.3456 TFLOPSno data
ROPs3no data
TMUs24no data

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfaceRing Busno data

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 typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount32 GB16 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared192 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared7008 MHz
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 Dependentno data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+
Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12_1
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL3.0no data
Vulkan+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 September 2015 1 September 2017
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 60 Watt

HD Graphics 520 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.

P3000 Max-Q, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years.

We couldn't decide between HD Graphics 520 and Quadro P3000 Max-Q. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that HD Graphics 520 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P3000 Max-Q is a mobile 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 520
HD Graphics 520
NVIDIA Quadro P3000 Max-Q
Quadro P3000 Max-Q

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 3059 votes

Rate HD Graphics 520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 8 votes

Rate Quadro P3000 Max-Q 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.