Intel HD Graphics 530 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 leads with an average score of 3898, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 trails at 3332. The Quadro 2000 also sits in the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the HD 530's 20th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in the only shared benchmark test?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro 2000 scores 3898 versus 3550 for the HD 530, a 9.8% advantage for the NVIDIA card. This is the sole head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU?

A: For the Quadro 2000, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883, only 0.4% lower), followed by the Quadro K2000D (3919, 0.5% higher). For the HD 530, the closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M (3316, 0.5% lower), with the GeForce 920M (3287) 1.4% behind.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern APIs?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 530 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro 2000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 530 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro 2000 achieves 5.000 GPixel/s, nearly double the HD 530's 2.850 GPixel/s. However, the HD 530 has a slightly higher texture rate at 22.80 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s for the Quadro.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF106 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². This is a discrete, single-slot card with a 178 mm length and 111 mm height, drawing 62 W TDP with no power connectors required beyond the PCIe slot.

The Intel HD Graphics 530 uses the Skylake GT2 chip under Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm+ process at Intel. Its die size is 123 mm², notably smaller than the Quadro's, though transistor count is not recorded. As an integrated GPU (IGP), it has no physical dimensions listed and operates on the Ring Bus interface, sharing system memory rather than using dedicated VRAM.

The shading unit count is identical at 192 for both GPUs, but the texture mapping units (TMUs) and raster operation units (ROPs) differ significantly. The Quadro 2000 has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, while the HD 530 has 24 TMUs and only 3 ROPs. This ROP disparity explains the Quadro's much higher pixel rate despite similar core counts.

Clock behavior also diverges. The HD 530 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 950 MHz, whereas the Quadro 2000's base and boost clocks are not recorded. Memory clocks show the Quadro at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) on GDDR5, while the HD 530's memory speed is system-dependent.

The Quadro 2000 supports PCIe 2.0 x16, while the HD 530 uses the Ring Bus. Display outputs for the Quadro are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, whereas the HD 530's outputs are motherboard-dependent. The Quadro also has a higher FP32 throughput at 480.0 GFLOPS versus 364.8 GFLOPS for the HD 530, though the Intel part offers FP16 at 729.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins in compute-heavy workloads that rely on raw FP32 performance and dedicated memory bandwidth. Its 480.0 GFLOPS FP32 output and 41.60 GB/s dedicated bandwidth give it a clear edge in OpenCL tasks, as evidenced by its 9.8% lead in that benchmark. The 16 ROPs also make it superior for pixel-bound operations, with a pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s.

The Intel HD Graphics 530 wins in scenarios where power efficiency and API modernity matter more than raw throughput. Its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Quadro's 62 W, making it suitable for compact systems without discrete graphics. It also supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1), enabling newer rendering paths that the Quadro cannot access. The HD 530's higher texture rate (22.80 GTexel/s) also gives it a slight edge in texture-heavy workloads despite fewer TMUs.

In terms of benchmark breadth, the HD 530 has recorded scores in three tests (OpenCL, Metal, and Vulkan), while the Quadro 2000 only has an OpenCL score. The HD 530's Vulkan score of 1422 and Metal score of 5025 indicate it can handle those APIs, whereas the Quadro has no recorded results for them.

The Quadro 2000's nearest rivals cluster around its performance level, with the closest being 0.4% lower and 1.4% higher. The HD 530's rivals also sit close, with the nearest being 0.5% lower and the furthest 2.9% higher. Neither GPU has a wide performance gap to its immediate competitors.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The process node shows 40 nm for the Quadro versus 14 nm+ for the HD 530, reflecting a generational leap in manufacturing. Foundry is TSMC for NVIDIA and Intel for the integrated part.

Die size differs at 238 mm² for the Quadro versus 123 mm² for the HD 530. Transistor count is recorded only for the Quadro at 1,170 million, with the HD 530's count not listed. Memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all differ: 1024 MB GDDR5 with 128-bit bus and 41.60 GB/s for the Quadro, versus system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth for the HD 530.

Shading units are equal at 192, but TMUs differ (32 vs 24) and ROPs differ dramatically (16 vs 3). Pixel rate is 5.000 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 2.850 GPixel/s for the HD 530. Texture rate is 20.00 GTexel/s versus 22.80 GTexel/s, favoring Intel. FP32 is 480.0 GFLOPS versus 364.8 GFLOPS, while FP16 is not recorded for the Quadro and 729.6 GFLOPS for the HD 530.

TDP is 62 W for the Quadro versus 15 W for the HD 530. Slot width is single-slot versus IGP. The Quadro has no power connectors, while the HD 530 has none listed. The suggested PSU for the Quadro is 250 W, with no such figure for the HD 530. Bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 versus Ring Bus.

Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort for the Quadro, versus motherboard-dependent for the HD 530. APIs differ in DirectX (12 (11_0) vs 12 (12_1)) and Vulkan (none vs 1.3), though OpenGL is the same at 4.6. Release dates are about five years apart: the Quadro launched on 2010-12-23 and the HD 530 on 2015-08-31. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 scores 3550. This gives the Quadro a 9.8% victory, the sole head-to-head win recorded in the database. The Quadro's score of 3898 places it just 0.4% above the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883), showing it sits in a tight competitive cluster. The HD 530's OpenCL score of 3550 is 1.7% above the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389) and 2.9% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431), indicating it is slightly below the Quadro's neighborhood.

The Quadro 2000's average score of 3898 matches its OpenCL score, confirming it has only one recorded benchmark. The HD 530's average of 3332 is lower than its OpenCL score because its Vulkan result of 1422 pulls the average down. Its Metal score of 5025 is the highest of any recorded metric for either GPU, but Metal is not a cross-vendor test applicable to the Quadro.

In terms of percentile standing, the Quadro ranks at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 530 sits at the 20th percentile. This 3-percentage-point gap aligns with the OpenCL delta. The HD 530's nearest rival, the GeForce GT 730M, averages 3316, which is 0.5% below the HD 530's average. The Quadro's nearest rival, the Radeon R5 Graphics, averages 3883, which is 0.4% below the Quadro.

The performance difference in OpenCL likely stems from the Quadro's dedicated memory and higher FP32 throughput. The HD 530's system-shared memory creates a bottleneck that the Quadro avoids with its 41.60 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. However, the HD 530's 22.80 GTexel/s texture rate is 14% higher than the Quadro's 20.00 GTexel/s, suggesting texture-bound workloads could narrow the gap even if pixel-bound tasks do not.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 in raw compute performance. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 9.8%, has a higher average score (3898 vs 3332), and sits at a higher percentile (23rd vs 20th). Its dedicated GDDR5 memory, 16 ROPs, and 480.0 GFLOPS FP32 output make it the stronger choice for OpenCL workloads and pixel-heavy rendering tasks. The 62 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU indicate it requires a real power supply, but it delivers correspondingly higher throughput.

The Intel HD Graphics 530 is the better option for systems where power efficiency and modern API support are priorities. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro's 62 W, and its Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1) support open up newer graphics features that the Quadro cannot use. The HD 530's higher texture rate and FP16 capability (729.6 GFLOPS) also provide advantages in specific workloads, though its 3 ROPs severely limit pixel fill.

For a user selecting between these two end-of-life products, the choice depends on the workload. The Quadro 2000 is the pick for compute-heavy OpenCL tasks and applications that benefit from dedicated VRAM and high pixel throughput. The HD 530 is the pick for integrated, low-power systems that need modern API compatibility and can rely on system memory. The recorded data shows no scenario where the HD 530 beats the Quadro in a shared benchmark, so any decision favoring Intel must rest on features outside the direct performance comparison.