Intel HD Graphics 530 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is remarkably close. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M scores 3616, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 trails slightly at 3550, giving the NVIDIA part a narrow 1.9% lead. This is within the margin of noise for most workloads, meaning the two are effectively peers in raw OpenCL compute performance despite their vastly different architectures and target platforms.

Looking at the broader rival landscape, the GT 735M sits at the 21st percentile among all GPUs, placing it just 0.3% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 (3629) and 0.6% ahead of both the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 (3594). It also trails the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649) by 0.9%. The Intel HD Graphics 530, meanwhile, holds the 20th percentile with an average benchmark score of 3332 across all its tested workloads — a figure dragged down by its much weaker Vulkan result of 1422. Its OpenCL score of 3550 is nearly identical to the GT 735M, but its Metal score of 5025 shows the Intel part can punch well above its weight in Apple's graphics API.

The delta between the two in OpenCL is small enough that a single driver update or thermal variation could flip the result. The GT 735M wins the head-to-head, but the data suggests this is not a decisive victory — it is a tie broken by a rounding error.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is stark. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M uses the GK208 chip built on Kepler 2.0 architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 1,020 million transistors into an 87 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 11.7 million per square millimeter. The Intel HD Graphics 530, by contrast, uses the Skylake GT2 chip on Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm+ process. Its die size is larger at 123 mm², though Intel does not disclose transistor counts or density for this part.

Clock speeds tell a story of power management philosophy. The GT 735M runs at a 575 MHz base clock with a 628 MHz boost, while the HD 530 idles at 350 MHz but boosts aggressively to 950 MHz. That boost behavior explains how the Intel part nearly matches the NVIDIA GPU in OpenCL despite having half the shading units — 192 versus 384. The Intel part compensates with a 2.7x clock advantage at peak boost.

Memory configurations could not be more different. The GT 735M has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The HD 530 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with whatever RAM the host system provides. In a dual-channel DDR4 setup, the Intel part could theoretically exceed the NVIDIA GPU's bandwidth, but the data does not quantify this.

The compute pipelines diverge significantly. The GT 735M delivers 482.3 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, 20.10 GTexel/s texture fill, and 5.024 GPixel/s pixel throughput. The HD 530 produces 364.8 GFLOPS of FP32 — about 24% less — but has a higher texture rate at 22.80 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate is much lower at 2.850 GPixel/s, a consequence of having only 3 ROPs versus the GT 735M's 8. The Intel part also supports FP16 at 729.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a capability the NVIDIA GPU lacks entirely.

API support tilts toward Intel. The HD 530 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the GT 735M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Power consumption favors Intel substantially — 15 W TDP versus 33 W — though both are integrated-style solutions with "IGP" slot width and no power connectors.

The Verdict

The data paints a picture of two GPUs that achieve similar OpenCL results through completely different means. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, but by a margin of 1.9% that is almost statistically insignificant. Its dedicated memory, higher ROP count, and superior FP32 throughput give it an edge in traditional GPU workloads, but the Intel HD Graphics 530 counters with lower power draw, better API support, and a higher boost clock.

From a pure benchmark standpoint, the GT 735M is the safer choice for raw compute performance. Its 21st percentile ranking versus the HD 530's 20th is marginal, but the NVIDIA part also has more consistent scores across its benchmark suite — it only has one recorded benchmark, while the Intel part shows significant variance between its OpenCL score of 3550 and its Vulkan score of 1422. That variance suggests the HD 530's performance is highly workload-dependent.

However, the HD 530's Metal score of 5025 is a standout. If the target platform involves Apple's ecosystem, the Intel part is clearly superior in that specific API. The GT 735M has no Metal benchmark recorded, so its performance there is unknown.

For general-purpose OpenCL compute, the GT 735M edges out the HD 530. For power-constrained systems, the HD 530's 15 W TDP is less than half the NVIDIA part's 33 W. For modern API support, the Intel GPU's Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12_1 are more future-proof.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M scores 3616 versus the Intel HD Graphics 530's 3550, a 1.9% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The GT 735M is 0.3% behind the GeForce GTX 1050 and 0.6% ahead of the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation. The HD 530 is 0.5% ahead of the GeForce GT 730M and 1.4% ahead of the GeForce 920M.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 530 has a 15 W TDP, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M has a 33 W TDP — Intel's part uses less than half the power.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The HD 530 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the GT 735M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M has 384 shading units, double the Intel HD Graphics 530's 192. However, the Intel part boosts to 950 MHz versus the GT 735M's 628 MHz boost clock.

Q: What is the Intel HD Graphics 530's best benchmark result?

A: Its Geekbench Metal score of 5025 is its highest recorded result, well above its OpenCL score of 3550 and Vulkan score of 1422.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M wins in scenarios that benefit from dedicated memory and higher pixel throughput. Its 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 64-bit bus provides predictable bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s, independent of system RAM configuration. Its 8 ROPs deliver 5.024 GPixel/s, nearly double the HD 530's 2.850 GPixel/s, making it better suited for fill-rate-bound tasks like high-resolution texture blending or multi-sampled rendering. Its FP32 throughput of 482.3 GFLOPS exceeds the Intel part by about 32%, which helps in compute-heavy applications that do not leverage FP16.

The Intel HD Graphics 530 wins in power-constrained environments and modern API workloads. Its 15 W TDP is less than half the GT 735M's 33 W, making it the obvious choice for thin-and-light laptops or fanless designs. Its Vulkan 1.3 support is a full minor version ahead of the NVIDIA part, and DirectX 12_1 enables features like conservative rasterization that the GT 735M's 11_0 level cannot handle. Its FP16 throughput of 729.6 GFLOPS is a significant advantage for AI inference or graphics effects that use half-precision math, a capability the GT 735M lacks entirely.

The HD 530's Metal score of 5025 suggests it is the better choice for macOS or iOS development environments, though no direct Metal comparison with the GT 735M exists. Its higher texture rate of 22.80 GTexel/s versus 20.10 GTexel/s also gives it a slight edge in texture-heavy workloads, despite its lower overall compute.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M | Intel HD Graphics 530 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 | Generation 9.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm+ |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 87 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | Not disclosed |

| Transistor Density | 11.7M / mm² | Not disclosed |

| Base Clock | 575 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 628 MHz | 950 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 384 | 192 |

| TMUs | 32 | 24 |

| ROPs | 8 | 3 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.024 GPixel/s | 2.850 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.10 GTexel/s | 22.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 482.3 GFLOPS | 364.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not available | 729.6 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 33 W | 15 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | Ring Bus |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.3 |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Release Date | 2013-03-31 | 2015-08-31 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

The specification sheet reveals a fundamental design split. NVIDIA built a compact, power-hungry discrete GPU with dedicated memory and high fill rates. Intel built a larger, more efficient integrated solution that leans on system memory and high boost clocks. The die size difference — 123 mm² for Intel versus 87 mm² for NVIDIA — is notable given Intel's more advanced 14 nm+ process, suggesting the HD 530 dedicates significant silicon to features beyond the GPU core, such as the ring bus interface and shared memory controller. The transistor density gap (11.7M/mm² for NVIDIA versus undisclosed for Intel) hints at different design priorities: NVIDIA optimized for compute density, while Intel focused on integration and power efficiency.