HD Graphics 4000 vs Quadro FX 3700M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3700M with HD Graphics 4000, including specs and performance data.

FX 3700M
2008, $925
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.08

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11291124
Place by popularitynot in top-10060
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency1.111.84
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Generation 7.0 (2012−2013)
GPU code nameG92Ivy Bridge GT2
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date14 August 2008 (17 years ago)14 May 2012 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$925 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores128128
Core clock speed550 MHz650 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1000 MHz
Number of transistors754 million1,200 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm22 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Wattunknown
Texture fill rate35.2016.00
Floating-point processing power0.352 TFLOPS0.256 TFLOPS
ROPs162
TMUs6416
L2 Cache64 KBno 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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-HERing Bus

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (11_0)
Shader Model4.05.0
OpenGL3.34.0
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A+
CUDA+-

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.

FX 3700M 1.08
HD Graphics 4000 1.08

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.

FX 3700M 450
Samples: 177
HD Graphics 4000 454
+0.9%
Samples: 46643

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

FX 3700M 5053
+70.8%
HD Graphics 4000 2959

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:

900p12−14
+0%
12
+0%
Full HD10−12
−10%
11
+10%

Cost per frame, $

1080p92.50no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
+23.8%
21
−23.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
−13.3%
17
+13.3%
Escape from Tarkov 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how FX 3700M and HD Graphics 4000 compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 900p
  • HD Graphics 4000 is 10% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the FX 3700M is 24% faster.
  • in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD Graphics 4000 is 13% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 3700M performs better in 1 test (2%)
  • HD Graphics 4000 performs better in 1 test (2%)
  • there's a draw in 41 tests (95%)

Pros & cons summary


Recency 14 August 2008 14 May 2012
Chip lithography 65 nm 22 nm

HD Graphics 4000 has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 195.5% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro FX 3700M and HD Graphics 4000.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3700M is a mobile workstation graphics card while HD Graphics 4000 is a mobile workstation 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.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700M
Quadro FX 3700M
Intel HD Graphics 4000
HD Graphics 4000

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 2 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3700M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 5879 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 3700M or HD Graphics 4000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.