Iris Plus Graphics vs Quadro 3000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro 3000M with Iris Plus Graphics, including specs and performance data.

Quadro 3000M
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
2.50

Iris Plus Graphics outperforms 3000M by an impressive 82% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking830657
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.25no data
Power efficiency2.3721.64
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 11.0 (2019−2021)
GPU code nameGF104Ice Lake GT2
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date22 February 2011 (13 years ago)no data
Launch price (MSRP)$398.96 no data

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 cores240512
Core clock speed450 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1000 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate18.0032.00
Floating-point processing power0.432 TFLOPS1.024 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs4032

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x1
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed625 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth80 GB/sno data
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA2.1-

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.

Quadro 3000M 2.50
Iris Plus Graphics 4.56
+82.4%

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.

Quadro 3000M 994
Iris Plus Graphics 1811
+82.2%

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 HD51
−76.5%
90−95
+76.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p7.82no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−80%
18−20
+80%
Valorant 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Dota 2 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−68.8%
27−30
+68.8%
Fortnite 14−16
−71.4%
24−27
+71.4%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−66.7%
40−45
+66.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−80%
18−20
+80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−80%
18−20
+80%
Valorant 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
World of Tanks 45−50
−80.9%
85−90
+80.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Dota 2 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−68.8%
27−30
+68.8%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−66.7%
40−45
+66.7%
Valorant 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−76.5%
30−33
+76.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
World of Tanks 16−18
−76.5%
30−33
+76.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−71.4%
12−14
+71.4%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Valorant 9−10
−77.8%
16−18
+77.8%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
−68.8%
27−30
+68.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−80%
27−30
+80%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−71.4%
12−14
+71.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−80%
27−30
+80%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Dota 2 16−18
−68.8%
27−30
+68.8%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

This is how Quadro 3000M and Iris Plus Graphics compete in popular games:

  • Iris Plus Graphics is 76% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.50 4.56
Chip lithography 40 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 15 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics has a 82.4% higher aggregate performance score, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Iris Plus Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 3000M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro 3000M is a mobile workstation card while Iris Plus Graphics 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.


NVIDIA Quadro 3000M
Quadro 3000M
Intel Iris Plus Graphics
Iris Plus Graphics

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.


3.8 49 votes

Rate Quadro 3000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 380 votes

Rate Iris Plus Graphics 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.