Intel HD Graphics 530 vs NVIDIA GeForce 825M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 825M and Intel HD Graphics 530 are both integrated-class graphics solutions aimed at different priorities, and the benchmark data reflects a narrow but clear split. In the only directly comparable test, the GeForce OpenCL score of 3694 edges out the HD 530’s 3550 by 4.1%, giving the NVIDIA part a single head-to-head win. However, the Intel solution counters with a broader API feature set, including Vulkan 1.3 and a Metal score of 5025, alongside a much lower 15 W TDP. The verdict from the data is straightforward: the GeForce 825M is the pick for raw compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, while the HD 530 is the better choice for users prioritizing modern API support, lower power draw, and system-shared memory flexibility.

The Verdict

Strictly from the numbers, the GeForce 825M wins the only benchmark where both are measured, posting 3694 in Geekbench OpenCL against the HD 530’s 3550, a 4.1% advantage. This places the NVIDIA part in the 22nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel part sits at the 20th percentile — a marginal overall gap, but one that favors NVIDIA in compute tasks. The GeForce 825M also aligns closely with its nearest rivals, sitting just 0.6% behind the GT 740M and Quadro 3000M, and 1.2% ahead of the Radeon HD 6770. In contrast, the HD 530’s average benchmark score of 3332 is dragged down by its Vulkan result of 1422, despite a strong Metal score of 5025, indicating that its performance is highly API-dependent.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the data suggests the GeForce 825M for users who need consistent OpenCL compute performance, as its dedicated 1024 MB of DDR3 memory and 64-bit bus provide a fixed resource pool. The HD 530, with its system-shared memory and 15 W TDP, is the more efficient option for everyday workloads where API versatility matters more than peak compute. The NVIDIA part’s 33 W TDP is more than double the Intel’s, but it delivers higher texture and pixel rates: 30.11 GTexel/s versus 22.80, and 7.528 GPixel/s versus 2.850. The HD 530’s advantage in API support — DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.175 — makes it the safer choice for modern software, despite losing the raw OpenCL race.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The GeForce 825M uses the GK208 chip built on Kepler 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC at 28 nm, with 1,020 million transistors packed into an 87 mm² die. The HD 530 uses the Skylake GT2 chip on Intel’s Generation 9.0 architecture, manufactured at 14 nm+, with a larger 123 mm² die but no transistor count listed in the data. The process node difference — 28 nm versus 14 nm+ — explains why the Intel part achieves comparable compute with far fewer resources, as its transistor density is not listed but its die area is larger despite the smaller process.

Shader configurations differ sharply. The GeForce 825M packs 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the HD 530 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. This 2:1 ratio in shading units lets NVIDIA reach 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, exactly double the HD 530’s 364.8 GFLOPS. The Intel part compensates with FP16 support at 729.6 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the GeForce lacks entirely. Memory architecture is another divider: the 825M uses dedicated 1024 MB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the HD 530 relies entirely on system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA part’s dedicated frame buffer ensures predictable performance, whereas the Intel solution’s memory performance varies with the host system.

Interface and power draw complete the architectural split. The GeForce 825M uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the HD 530 connects via Ring Bus. The NVIDIA part draws 33 W, more than double the Intel’s 15 W, reflecting its additional fixed-function hardware. Both are IGP slot-width parts with no power connectors, and both are end-of-life, but the GeForce 825M launched earlier, on 2014-01-26, versus the HD 530’s 2015-08-31. The GeForce 825M has a defined predecessor (GeForce 700M) and successor (GeForce 900M), while the HD 530 lists neither.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 825M wins in raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 3694 beats the HD 530’s 3550 by 4.1%, and its FP32 output of 722.7 GFLOPS is exactly double the Intel part’s 364.8. Texture fill is also an NVIDIA win at 30.11 GTexel/s versus 22.80, and pixel fill is a landslide at 7.528 GPixel/s versus 2.850, a 2.64x advantage. These figures point to the 825M being better suited for tasks that hammer fixed-function units, such as older game rendering at low resolutions or compute shaders that rely on FP32 throughput. Its 8 ROPs versus 3 also means better fill-rate-bound performance in pixel-heavy workloads.

The HD 530 wins on API modernity and efficiency. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) compared to the 825M’s 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.175, meaning it can run newer graphics code paths. Its Metal score of 5025 is the single highest benchmark result between the two, suggesting strong performance in Apple’s Metal API, even though that test wasn’t run on the NVIDIA part. The 15 W TDP is less than half the 33 W of the GeForce, making it the clear choice for battery-sensitive devices. The HD 530’s system-shared memory also offers flexibility, scaling with host RAM rather than being capped at 1024 MB, which is advantageous for memory-heavy applications that exceed the NVIDIA part’s fixed allocation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 4.1% higher than the Intel HD Graphics 530’s 3550.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics 530 support more modern APIs than the NVIDIA part?

A: Yes. The HD 530 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the GeForce 825M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The GeForce 825M has a TDP of 33 W, while the HD 530 is rated at 15 W, making the Intel part more than twice as power-efficient.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The GeForce 825M uses 1024 MB of dedicated DDR3 with a 64-bit bus and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the HD 530 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GeForce 825M has 384 shading units, exactly double the HD 530’s 192 shading units.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The GeForce 825M has an average benchmark score of 3694, while the HD 530 averages 3332, a difference driven by the Intel part’s low Vulkan score of 1422.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a narrow NVIDIA victory. The GeForce 825M scores 3694, while the HD 530 scores 3550, giving the NVIDIA part a 4.1% lead. This margin is small but consistent with the 825M’s hardware advantage: double the shading units (384 versus 192) and double the FP32 throughput (722.7 GFLOPS versus 364.8). However, the HD 530’s other benchmark results — a Metal score of 5025 and a Vulkan score of 1422 — show that its performance varies wildly depending on the API. The Metal score is 41.6% higher than its OpenCL score, while the Vulkan score is 60% lower. This suggests the HD 530 is well-optimized for Apple’s Metal framework but struggles with Vulkan, whereas the GeForce 825M has no such variance, with a single OpenCL result.

The pixel rate gap is the largest single difference: the GeForce 825M’s 7.528 GPixel/s is 2.64x the HD 530’s 2.850 GPixel/s. Similarly, texture rate favors NVIDIA by 32% (30.11 versus 22.80 GTexel/s). These differences reflect the ROP count (8 versus 3) and TMU count (32 versus 24). In terms of nearest rivals, the GeForce 825M sits at 3694, just 0.6% below the GT 740M’s 3717 and 1.2% above the Radeon HD 6770’s 3649. The HD 530’s average of 3332 is 0.5% above the GT 730M’s 3316 and 1.4% above the GeForce 920M’s 3287, but 2.9% below the desktop GT 740’s 3431. This places the Intel part in a lower performance tier overall, despite its higher Metal score.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The GeForce 825M uses the GK208 chip on Kepler 2.0 architecture, while the HD 530 uses Skylake GT2 on Generation 9.0. Process nodes are 28 nm (TSMC) for NVIDIA versus 14 nm+ (Intel) for the HD 530. The GeForce 825M has a transistor count of 1,020 million on an 87 mm² die, while the HD 530 lists no transistor count but a larger 123 mm² die. Clock speeds differ significantly: the 825M runs at 850 MHz base and 941 MHz boost, while the HD 530 runs at 350 MHz base and 950 MHz boost — the Intel part boosts slightly higher but starts far lower.

Memory is a major divider: the GeForce 825M has 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the HD 530 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated clock. Compute resources favor NVIDIA: 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 8 ROPs versus 192, 24, and 3, respectively. FP32 output is 722.7 GFLOPS for the 825M versus 364.8 for the HD 530, but the Intel part adds FP16 at 729.6 GFLOPS, which the NVIDIA part lacks. Pixel rate is 7.528 GPixel/s versus 2.850, and texture rate is 30.11 GTexel/s versus 22.80. Power draw is 33 W versus 15 W. API support favors Intel with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, versus NVIDIA’s DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both use IGP slot width, but the 825M has a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface while the HD 530 uses Ring Bus. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for NVIDIA and motherboard dependent for Intel. The GeForce 825M launched on 2014-01-26, while the HD 530 launched on 2015-08-31.