GMA 3150 vs Quadro P4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking2391598
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.86no data
Power efficiency19.97no data
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameGP104Pineview
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date6 February 2017 (8 years ago)9 May 2007 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$815 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 cores179216
Core clock speed1202 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1480 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,200 million123 million
Manufacturing process technology16 nm45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate165.80.8
Floating-point processing power5.304 TFLOPS0.0128 TFLOPS
ROPs641
TMUs1122
L1 Cache672 KBno data
L2 Cache2 MBno 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCI
Length241 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount8 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1901 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth192 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs
Display Port1.4no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
3D Stereo+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX129.0c
Shader Model6.43.0
OpenGL4.52.0
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA6.1-

Synthetic benchmarks

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



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 P4000 11427
+571250%
Samples: 3108
GMA 3150 2
Samples: 1

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 HD65no data

Cost per frame, $

1080p12.54no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 150−160 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 no data

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 100−110 no data
Counter-Strike 2 150−160 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 no data
Escape from Tarkov 100−110 no data
Far Cry 5 90−95 no data
Fortnite 130−140 no data
Forza Horizon 4 100−110 no data
Forza Horizon 5 85−90 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120 no data
Valorant 180−190 no data

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 100−110 no data
Counter-Strike 2 150−160 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 no data
Dota 2 130−140 no data
Escape from Tarkov 100−110 no data
Far Cry 5 90−95 no data
Fortnite 130−140 no data
Forza Horizon 4 100−110 no data
Forza Horizon 5 85−90 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 95−100 no data
Metro Exodus 60−65 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 77 no data
Valorant 180−190 no data

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 no data
Dota 2 130−140 no data
Escape from Tarkov 100−110 no data
Far Cry 5 90−95 no data
Forza Horizon 4 100−110 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110−120 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41 no data
Valorant 180−190 no data

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 130−140 no data

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 60−65 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55 no data
Metro Exodus 35−40 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 no data
Valorant 210−220 no data

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 75−80 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30 no data
Escape from Tarkov 60−65 no data
Far Cry 5 65−70 no data
Forza Horizon 4 70−75 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50 no data

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 65−70 no data

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 27−30 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55 no data
Metro Exodus 24−27 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45 no data
Valorant 160−170 no data

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45 no data
Counter-Strike 2 27−30 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14 no data
Dota 2 85−90 no data
Escape from Tarkov 30−33 no data
Far Cry 5 30−35 no data
Forza Horizon 4 45−50 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35 no data

4K
Epic

Fortnite 30−35 no data

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 February 2017 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 16 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 13 Watt

Quadro P4000 has an age advantage of 9 years, and a 181.3% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 3150, on the other hand, has 669.2% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Quadro P4000 and GMA 3150. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro P4000 is a workstation graphics card while GMA 3150 is a notebook 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 P4000
Quadro P4000
Intel GMA 3150
GMA 3150

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.


4 349 votes

Rate Quadro P4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 174 votes

Rate GMA 3150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro P4000 or GMA 3150, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.