HD Graphics 3000 vs Quadro K2000

Place in performance ranking	652	1147
Place by popularity	not in top-100	89
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.32	no data
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Gen. 6 Sandy Bridge (2011)
GPU code name	GK107	Sandy Bridge
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	1 March 2013 (11 years ago)	1 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$599	no data
Current price	$550 (0.9x MSRP)	$476

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro K2000 and HD Graphics 3000 have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	384	12
Core clock speed	954 MHz	350 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1350 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	995 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	32 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	51 Watt	unknown
Texture fill rate	30.53	13.80
Floating-point performance	732.7 gflops	20.4 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro K2000 and HD Graphics 3000 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 1.0 x16
Length	202 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	GDDR5	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed	4000 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	64 GB/s	no 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 Connectors

1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.1
OpenCL	1.2	N/A
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	3.0	no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 K2000 4.09
+520%

HD Graphics 3000 0.66

Quadro K2000 outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by 520% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

Quadro K2000 1578
+521%

HD Graphics 3000 254

Quadro K2000 outperforms HD Graphics 3000 by 521% in Passmark.

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 HD

45−50
+463%

−463%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

18−20

+500%

3−4
−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Hitman 3	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +483%	12−14 −483%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 +471%	7−8 −471%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +500%	10−11 −500%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Hitman 3	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +483%	12−14 −483%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 +471%	7−8 −471%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +500%	10−11 −500%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	70−75 +483%	12−14 −483%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40−45 +471%	7−8 −471%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +500%	10−11 −500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Hitman 3	35−40 +483%	6−7 −483%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%