Intel HD Graphics 530 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M and the Intel HD Graphics 530 are extremely close. The Quadro 2000M averages 3434, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 averages 3332. The Quadro 2000M holds a 3.1% lead over the Intel part, based on the nearestRivals data.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: In the geekbench_opencl test, the Intel HD Graphics 530 scores 3550, edging out the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M's score of 3434. The Intel part wins this specific head-to-head by a delta of -3.3% (meaning the Quadro trails by 3.3%).

Q: What is the transistor density difference between these chips?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC, packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, yielding a density of 4.9M transistors per mm². The Intel HD Graphics 530, on a 14 nm+ process, has a die size of 123 mm², but its transistor count and density are not listed in the data.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern graphics APIs?

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

Q: What are the thermal design power (TDP) ratings for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has a TDP of 55 W, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 has a much lower TDP of 15 W. This reflects the Quadro's discrete MXM module design versus the Intel part's integrated IGP form factor.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics 530 uses System Shared memory, with its size, type, and bus width all listed as "System Shared" and bandwidth noted as "System Dependent."

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF106 chip, and belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation. It is manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process, with a die size of 238 mm² and 1,170 million transistors, resulting in a density of 4.9M transistors per mm². The Intel HD Graphics 530, in contrast, uses the Skylake GT2 chip under Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture, produced in-house on a 14 nm+ process with a smaller 123 mm² die. The Intel part's transistor count is not provided, making a direct density comparison impossible.

The most striking architectural difference is in the memory subsystem. The Quadro 2000M features a dedicated 2 GB DDR3 frame buffer with a 128-bit bus and fixed bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The HD Graphics 530 has no dedicated memory; it relies entirely on system shared memory, with its bandwidth being system dependent. This fundamentally changes how each GPU handles memory-intensive workloads.

Compute resources show both similarities and divergences. Both GPUs have 192 shading units. However, the Quadro 2000M has 32 texture mapping units (TMUs) and 16 ROPs, while the HD Graphics 530 has 24 TMUs and only 3 ROPs. This ROP disparity is stark and explains significant differences in pixel throughput. The Quadro 2000M delivers 4.400 GPixel/s, while the Intel part manages only 2.850 GPixel/s. Conversely, the HD Graphics 530 has a higher texture rate at 22.80 GTexel/s versus the Quadro's 17.60 GTexel/s.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro 2000M's base and boost clocks are not listed, but its memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The HD Graphics 530 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 950 MHz. The Intel part supports FP16 compute at 729.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature not listed for the Quadro. FP32 performance favors the Quadro at 422.4 GFLOPS versus the Intel's 364.8 GFLOPS.

Form factor and interface are polar opposites. The Quadro 2000M is a discrete MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors required, while the HD Graphics 530 is an integrated IGP on a Ring Bus, with its display outputs being motherboard dependent. The Quadro's display outputs are portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is geekbench_opencl. In this test, the Intel HD Graphics 530 scores 3550, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434. The Intel part wins this round, with the delta showing the Quadro at -3.3% relative to the Intel part. This means the HD Graphics 530 is roughly 3.3% faster in OpenCL compute.

Looking at the broader competitor landscape, the Quadro 2000M's 3434 score places it just 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431) and 1.3% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3528) by 2.7%. The Intel HD Graphics 530's 3332 average puts it 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M (3316) and 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 920M (3287), but it sits 1.7% behind the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389) and 2.9% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431).

The single head-to-head result reveals a narrow margin. The 116-point difference between 3550 and 3434 is small in real-world terms, but the data unequivocally awards the win to Intel. Notably, the Intel part also has additional benchmark results in Metal (5025) and Vulkan (1422), which the Quadro does not have, suggesting broader API coverage in the test suite.

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a picture of two GPUs that are nearly identical in raw compute performance, but with very different strengths. The Intel HD Graphics 530 takes the single available head-to-head victory in OpenCL, scoring 3550 versus the Quadro 2000M's 3434. However, the Quadro 2000M holds a higher average benchmark score (3434 vs 3332) and a better percentile ranking (21st vs 20th percentile versus all GPUs).

The Quadro 2000M is the clear choice for pixel-heavy workloads. Its 16 ROPs and 4.400 GPixel/s pixel rate are dramatically higher than the HD Graphics 530's 3 ROPs and 2.850 GPixel/s. The Quadro also has more dedicated memory bandwidth at 28.80 GB/s, which is fixed and predictable, versus the Intel part's system-dependent shared memory. For applications that rely on rasterization throughput, the Quadro's architecture is superior.

The Intel HD Graphics 530 wins on texture throughput (22.80 GTexel/s vs 17.60 GTexel/s) and offers FP16 compute at 729.6 GFLOPS, which the Quadro lacks entirely. Its 15 W TDP is drastically lower than the Quadro's 55 W, making it far more suitable for power-constrained mobile designs. The Intel part also supports newer API features, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the Quadro is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support.

For a user prioritizing raw pixel fill and dedicated memory, the Quadro 2000M is the data-backed pick. For a user prioritizing power efficiency, modern API coverage, and texture-heavy compute, the HD Graphics 530 is the better choice. The overall performance gap is minimal, but the architectural trade-offs are clear.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: NVIDIA GF106 vs Intel Skylake GT2
• Architecture: Fermi vs Generation 9.0
• Generation: Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) vs HD Graphics (Skylake)
• Process Node: 40 nm vs 14 nm+
• Foundry: TSMC vs Intel
• Transistors: 1,170 million vs not listed
• Die Size: 238 mm² vs 123 mm²
• Transistor Density: 4.9M / mm² vs not listed
• Base Clock: not listed vs 350 MHz
• Boost Clock: not listed vs 950 MHz
• Memory Clock: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) vs System Shared
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs System Shared
• Memory Type: DDR3 vs System Shared
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s vs System Dependent
• TMUs: 32 vs 24
• ROPs: 16 vs 3
• Pixel Rate: 4.400 GPixel/s vs 2.850 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 17.60 GTexel/s vs 22.80 GTexel/s
• FP32: 422.4 GFLOPS vs 364.8 GFLOPS
• FP16: not listed vs 729.6 GFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 55 W vs 15 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs IGP
• Power Connectors: None vs not listed
• Bus Interface: MXM-A (3.0) vs Ring Bus
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs Motherboard Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan Support: not listed vs 1.3
• Release Date: 2011-01-12 vs 2015-08-31
• Predecessor: Quadro FX Mobile vs not listed
• Successor: Quadro Kepler-M vs not listed

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M is the superior choice in several specific areas. It delivers a 54% higher pixel rate (4.400 GPixel/s vs 2.850 GPixel/s) and a 16% higher FP32 compute (422.4 GFLOPS vs 364.8 GFLOPS). Its dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth provides guaranteed, consistent bandwidth, unlike the Intel part's system-dependent shared memory. The Quadro also has 32 TMUs versus the Intel's 24, and 16 ROPs versus 3, making it far more capable for traditional rasterization and fill-rate-bound tasks. Its higher average benchmark score (3434 vs 3332) and higher percentile (21st vs 20th) reinforce this edge in overall performance.

The Intel HD Graphics 530 wins in other key areas. It has a 30% higher texture rate (22.80 GTexel/s vs 17.60 GTexel/s), indicating better performance in texture-bound shader work. It offers FP16 compute at 729.6 GFLOPS, a capability entirely absent from the Quadro, which is valuable for certain compute and machine-learning-adjacent workloads. Its TDP of 15 W is a fraction of the Quadro's 55 W, making it dramatically more power-efficient. The Intel part also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan. Its 950 MHz boost clock is also listed, whereas the Quadro's clocks are unspecified.

In the direct OpenCL comparison, the Intel part wins with 3550 versus 3434. However, the Quadro 2000M's nearest rival data shows it outperforming the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389) by 1.3%, while the HD Graphics 530 trails that same P4600 by 1.7%. This indicates that while the HD Graphics 530 wins the specific head-to-head, the Quadro 2000M sits in a slightly stronger competitive position against shared rivals. The data suggests that for users constrained by power budgets or needing modern API features, the Intel part is the winner; for users needing dedicated memory and high pixel throughput, the Quadro 2000M is the winner.