Intel HD Graphics 530 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a split decision between the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M and the Intel HD Graphics 530, with each card taking one victory in the two available benchmark tests. The most dramatic separation occurs in the Geekbench Metal workload, where the Intel HD Graphics 530 posts a score of 5025 against the NVIDIA's 3132, a delta of negative 37.7 percent from the NVIDIA's perspective. That means the Intel part leads by roughly 60 percent, a substantial margin that suggests the integrated graphics solution is markedly stronger in Metal-based applications.

The Geekbench OpenCL test flips the script entirely. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M records 4934 points, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 trails with 3550 points. The NVIDIA card's win here is 39 percent ahead of the Intel part, a near-match to the Intel's Metal advantage in magnitude but in the opposite direction. These two results paint a picture of two very different compute personalities: the NVIDIA card excels in OpenCL, while the Intel integrated GPU dominates in Metal.

Looking at the broader database context, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M carries an average benchmark score of 4033 across its recorded tests, placing it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD FirePro M4150 at 4013 (a 0.5 percent difference), the Intel HD Graphics 630 at 4075 (negative 1 percent), the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3977 (1.4 percent), and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at 4093 (negative 1.5 percent). These deltas are all within 1.5 percent, indicating the GT 755M sits in a tightly contested performance band.

The Intel HD Graphics 530, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 3332, which places it in the 20th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M at 3316 (0.5 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce 920M at 3287 (1.4 percent), the Intel HD Graphics P4600 at 3389 (negative 1.7 percent), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 at 3431 (negative 2.9 percent). The Intel part's average is lower than the NVIDIA's, but the Metal result shows it can punch well above that average in specific workloads.

The head-to-head table records one win for each side, so neither card claims an overall victory in the direct comparison. The NVIDIA card's OpenCL win is substantial, but the Intel card's Metal win is equally decisive. The average scores, however, favor the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, which sits roughly 700 points higher than the Intel HD Graphics 530 in the database's aggregate metric.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate a clear workload split. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the choice for OpenCL-based compute tasks. Its 4934 OpenCL score is 39 percent higher than what the Intel HD Graphics 530 manages, and that gap is large enough to matter in real applications that leverage this API. The GT 755M's dedicated GDDR5 memory with 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth and its 384 shading units give it a structural advantage in this type of parallel compute, and the recorded score confirms that advantage in practice.

The Intel HD Graphics 530 owns the Metal workload. Its 5025 Metal score is 37.7 percent better than the NVIDIA's 3132, a commanding lead that suggests the Intel architecture's Generation 9.0 design is better optimized for Apple's Metal API. This is notable because the Intel part is an integrated GPU with system-shared memory, yet it still manages to outperform a discrete mobile GPU in this specific test. The Intel card also supports Vulkan 1.3, whereas the NVIDIA card tops out at Vulkan 1.2.175, which could give the Intel part an edge in newer Vulkan-based applications even though no Vulkan benchmark score is recorded for the NVIDIA card.

For users focused on OpenCL acceleration, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the stronger performer. For users in Metal-centric environments, the Intel HD Graphics 530 is clearly superior. The database does not record a DirectX or gaming benchmark for either card, so the comparison must remain confined to these compute APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, with an average score of 4033 compared to the Intel HD Graphics 530's 3332. The NVIDIA card also sits in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel part sits in the 20th percentile.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics 530 outperform the NVIDIA card in any test?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench Metal test the Intel HD Graphics 530 scores 5025 against the NVIDIA's 3132, a 37.7 percent advantage for the Intel part.

Q: What is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M's best benchmark result?

A: Its best recorded score is 4934 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is 39 percent higher than the Intel HD Graphics 530's OpenCL result.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M's closest rival is the AMD FirePro M4150, which scores 4013, a 0.5 percent difference. The Intel HD Graphics 530's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M, which scores 3316, also a 0.5 percent difference. Both cards are effectively tied with their immediate rivals.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 530 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M a discrete GPU?

A: Yes, it is a discrete mobile GPU on an MXM module with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory and a 128-bit memory bus. The Intel HD Graphics 530 is an integrated GPU (IGP) that shares system memory.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every hardware specification. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M uses a GK107 chip built on TSMC's 28 nm process, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 uses a Skylake GT2 chip on Intel's 14 nm+ process. The NVIDIA part has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The Intel die is slightly larger at 123 mm², but its transistor count is not recorded in the database.

Clock speeds show a stark contrast. The NVIDIA card has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1020 MHz, while the Intel card has a base clock of just 350 MHz and a boost of 950 MHz. Memory configurations are fundamentally different: the NVIDIA card uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel card uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

The compute units also differ substantially. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Intel HD Graphics 530 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. Pixel rates reflect this: the NVIDIA card achieves 8.160 GPixel/s versus the Intel's 2.850 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 32.64 GTexel/s versus 22.80 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance in FP32 is 783.4 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA part and 364.8 GFLOPS for the Intel part, while the Intel part also supports FP16 at 729.6 GFLOPS (2:1), a feature the NVIDIA card does not record.

Power draw is another major difference. The NVIDIA card is rated at 50 W TDP and uses an MXM module slot, while the Intel card is an IGP rated at 15 W TDP. The bus interface also differs: the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Intel card uses a Ring Bus. Release dates are separated by roughly two years, with the NVIDIA card launching on 2013-06-24 and the Intel card on 2015-08-31. Both are end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is fundamental. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is built on the Kepler architecture, part of the GeForce 700M generation, and is the successor to the GeForce 600M line, with the GeForce 800M as its successor. The Intel HD Graphics 530 uses the Generation 9.0 architecture, based on the Skylake GT2 chip, and belongs to the HD Graphics (Skylake) generation. No predecessor or successor is recorded for the Intel part.

The process nodes reflect different manufacturing philosophies: TSMC's 28 nm for NVIDIA versus Intel's 14 nm+ for the integrated part. The NVIDIA card's dedicated memory subsystem, with its 128-bit GDDR5 interface, is designed for consistent bandwidth in a mobile discrete package. The Intel card's system-shared memory approach means its bandwidth is entirely dependent on the host system's memory configuration, which the database records as "System Dependent."

Feature support also diverges. The Intel HD Graphics 530 supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1 and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0 and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Intel part's higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version suggest it has more modern API compatibility, despite its lower raw compute throughput. The NVIDIA part's 384 shading units versus the Intel's 192 gives it a 2:1 advantage in shader count, which helps explain its OpenCL dominance, but the Intel's 2:1 FP16 support indicates a more modern compute pipeline.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice based on workload. For OpenCL compute tasks, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the stronger option. Its 4934 OpenCL score is 39 percent ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 530, and its dedicated GDDR5 memory, 384 shading units, and higher pixel and texture rates all point to a part built for sustained parallel throughput. The NVIDIA card's 783.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance is more than double the Intel's 364.8 GFLOPS, so the OpenCL result is consistent with the hardware specifications.

For Metal-based workloads, the Intel HD Graphics 530 is the clear winner. Its 5025 Metal score beats the NVIDIA's 3132 by 37.7 percent, a reversal that speaks to architectural efficiency rather than raw compute power. The Intel part's Generation 9.0 architecture and its newer API support, including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1), make it a more future-proof option despite its lower average score.

Users who rely on OpenCL acceleration should choose the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M. Users in Metal-centric ecosystems, or those who prioritize modern API compatibility, should choose the Intel HD Graphics 530. The NVIDIA card's higher average benchmark score of 4033 versus 3332 suggests it is the more consistently capable part across mixed workloads, but the Intel card's commanding Metal win shows that API-specific optimization can outweigh raw specifications. Neither card is a universal winner, and the 1-1 record in the head-to-head table reflects that balance.