Intel UHD Graphics 710 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

Intel UHD Graphics 710 and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they represent fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The Intel part is a modern integrated GPU from the Alder Lake generation, while the Quadro 3000M is a legacy mobile workstation GPU based on NVIDIA's Fermi architecture. Benchmark data shows the Quadro 3000M holds a lead in the one available head-to-head comparison, yet the architectural gulf between these two parts tells a more nuanced story about their respective capabilities and intended use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this compute-oriented workload, the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718 points, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 scores 3496 points. This represents a 6% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a meaningful but not overwhelming margin. The Quadro 3000M's superior raw compute throughput is evident here, likely a consequence of its dedicated memory subsystem and higher shading unit count.

Contextualizing these scores against their nearest rivals provides additional insight. The Intel UHD Graphics 710's average benchmark score of 3792 places it in the 22nd percentile of all GPUs. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650, which averages 3823 points, a delta of -0.8%. The Intel part also trails the GeForce MX110 by 1.1% (3834 points) but edges out the GeForce GT 635M by 1.4% (3740 points). Notably, the Intel UHD 710 sits just 2% ahead of the Quadro 3000M in this rival comparison table, yet loses to it directly in the head-to-head OpenCL test — a slight discrepancy stemming from differing benchmark methodologies.

For the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M, its average score of 3718 also lands in the 22nd percentile. Its nearest rival is the GeForce GT 740M, which matches it exactly with 3717 points and a delta of 0%. The Quadro 3000M outperforms the GeForce 825M by 0.6% (3694 points) and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 by 1.9% (3649 points). The Quadro 3000M's single benchmark win in the head-to-head comparison (1 win versus 0 for Intel) underscores its edge in compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, but the narrow margins suggest that neither part is a dominant performer by modern standards.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting over a decade of semiconductor evolution. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 is built on Intel's Generation 12.2 architecture, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M uses the Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This process node difference is stark: the Intel part's 10 nm node allows for significantly more efficient transistor integration, while the Quadro 3000M's 40 nm process is comparatively large and power-hungry.

The Quadro 3000M's chip, designated GF104, contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. Intel does not disclose transistor count or die size for the UHD Graphics 710, but its integrated nature on the Alder Lake processor means it shares a die with CPU cores. The Quadro 3000M's dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel part relies entirely on system memory, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent" and memory speed as "System Shared."

Core configurations differ substantially. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 packs 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M counters with 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This gives the NVIDIA part a significant advantage in raw geometry and texturing throughput. Pixel rate for the Intel part is 10.40 GPixel/s, while the Quadro 3000M achieves only 4.500 GPixel/s — the Intel part is actually 2.3x faster in pixel fill rate. Texture rate tells a different story: the Quadro 3000M produces 18.00 GTexel/s versus the Intel part's 10.40 GTexel/s, a 1.7x advantage for NVIDIA.

Floating-point performance is where the Quadro 3000M's compute heritage shows. It delivers 432.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the Intel UHD 710's 332.8 GFLOPS. The Intel part supports FP16 at 665.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro 3000M has no listed FP16 capability. Power consumption reflects their different designs: the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is rated at 15 W TDP as an integrated graphics processor (IGP), while the Quadro 3000M draws 75 W as an MXM module.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 6% higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 710's score of 3496. This aligns with its higher FP32 throughput of 432.0 GFLOPS versus 332.8 GFLOPS.

Q: How do these GPUs compare in pixel fill rate?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 achieves a pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s, which is more than double the Quadro 3000M's 4.500 GPixel/s. This suggests the Intel part may handle certain rasterization-bound workloads more effectively.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each GPU?

A: The Quadro 3000M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, meaning performance varies based on the host system's memory.

Q: Do these GPUs support modern graphics APIs?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro 3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the thermal design power of each GPU?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has a TDP of 15 W, reflecting its integrated design. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75 W, typical for a discrete mobile workstation GPU of its era.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals in average benchmark scores?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 averages 3792 points, sitting within 1.4% of the GeForce GT 635M (3740 points) and 0.8% below the GeForce GTX 650 (3823 points). The Quadro 3000M averages 3718 points, matching the GeForce GT 740M (3717 points) and beating the GeForce 825M (3694 points) by 0.6%.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but narrow victory for the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M in compute performance, yet the Intel UHD Graphics 710 offers distinct advantages in other areas. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute workloads, the Quadro 3000M's 6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and its higher FP32 throughput (432.0 GFLOPS vs. 332.8 GFLOPS) make it the stronger choice. Its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth also provides predictable performance independent of system memory.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is not without merit. Its 10.40 GPixel/s pixel rate is dramatically higher than the Quadro 3000M's 4.500 GPixel/s, indicating better performance in pixel-heavy rendering scenarios. The Intel part also supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the Quadro 3000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and lacks Vulkan entirely. The 15 W TDP of the Intel part versus 75 W for the NVIDIA part makes it far more power-efficient, a critical factor in battery-powered devices.

Who should pick which? Users needing maximum compute throughput in legacy OpenCL applications, particularly those tied to mobile workstation software, would favor the Quadro 3000M. Its 240 shading units and 40 TMUs provide substantial raw processing capacity. Conversely, users who prioritize power efficiency, modern API support, and pixel fill rate would choose the Intel UHD Graphics 710. The Intel part's integration into Alder Lake systems also means it requires no additional power connectors and occupies no expansion slot, simplifying system design. The benchmark data ultimately shows two capable but aging parts, each excelling in different dimensions of GPU performance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel UHD Graphics 710 | NVIDIA Quadro 3000M |

|----------------|------------------------|---------------------|

| Architecture | Generation 12.2 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 40 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not disclosed | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | Not disclosed | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | Not disclosed | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | Not disclosed |

| Boost Clock | 1300 MHz | Not disclosed |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 128 | 240 |

| TMUs | 8 | 40 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.40 GPixel/s | 4.500 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 10.40 GTexel/s | 18.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 332.8 GFLOPS | 432.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1) | Not disclosed |

| TDP | 15 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not disclosed | None |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | Not disclosed |

| Release Date | 2022-01-03 | 2011-02-21 |

| Predecessor | Not disclosed | Quadro FX Mobile |

| Successor | Not disclosed | Quadro Kepler-M |