Intel HD Graphics 530 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M and Intel HD Graphics 530 represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics: a dedicated professional workstation part from 2011 versus an integrated consumer solution from 2015. Benchmark data shows the Quadro holds a narrow edge in raw compute, but the Intel part counters with modern API support and a much more efficient design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher score in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718, which is 4.7% higher than the Intel HD Graphics 530’s OpenCL score of 3550.

Q: How does the Intel HD Graphics 530 perform in other benchmark APIs?

A: The Intel part has scores in three separate tests: 5025 in Geekbench Metal, 3550 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 1422 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 3332.

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

A: The Quadro 3000M, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC, packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, yielding a density of 5.9M transistors per mm². The Intel HD Graphics 530 uses a 14 nm+ process and has a 123 mm² die size, though its transistor count is not listed.

Q: Which GPU supports the Vulkan API?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 530 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan support listed. Both parts support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, though the Quadro’s DirectX 12 support is limited to the 11_0 feature level.

Q: What is the memory configuration for each GPU?

A: The Quadro 3000M uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics 530 uses System Shared memory, with its bandwidth described as System Dependent.

Q: How do the two compare in terms of pixel and texture fill rates?

A: The Quadro 3000M has a higher pixel rate at 4.500 GPixel/s versus 2.850 GPixel/s for the Intel part. However, the Intel HD Graphics 530 wins on texture rate: 22.80 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M wins in raw compute throughput and traditional rasterization metrics. Its FP32 performance of 432.0 GFLOPS exceeds the Intel part’s 364.8 GFLOPS. The Quadro also has a significant advantage in pixel fill rate, delivering 4.500 GPixel/s against Intel’s 2.850 GPixel/s, which suggests better performance in fill-limited scenarios. Its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth is a major win for bandwidth-sensitive workloads, especially compared to Intel’s system-shared memory scheme.

The Intel HD Graphics 530 wins on architectural modernity and efficiency. Its 14 nm+ process node is dramatically smaller than the Quadro’s 40 nm node, and its TDP of 15 W is one-fifth of the Quadro’s 75 W. The Intel part also supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 at the 12_1 feature level, while the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). In the Geekbench Metal test, the Intel GPU scores 5025, a test the Quadro does not appear in. The Intel part also has a higher texture rate at 22.80 GTexel/s, and its FP16 performance of 729.6 GFLOPS (2:1) gives it an advantage in workloads that can use half-precision math.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 scores 3550. This gives the Quadro a 4.7% victory in raw OpenCL compute performance. The margin is modest but consistent with the theoretical FP32 numbers: the Quadro’s 432.0 GFLOPS versus Intel’s 364.8 GFLOPS represents an 18.4% advantage in peak compute, though real-world OpenCL efficiency narrows that gap considerably.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the Quadro’s single OpenCL score of 3718 is its only data point, giving it an average benchmark score of 3718. The Intel part, with three tests, averages 3332. However, Intel’s Metal score of 5025 is substantially higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting that the architecture performs better on Apple’s Metal API. The Vulkan score of 1422 is markedly lower, indicating that the integrated GPU’s Vulkan performance is its weakest area.

The Quadro’s nearest rival is the GeForce GT 740M with a score of 3717, a 0% delta, making the Quadro effectively identical to that part. The Intel HD Graphics 530’s closest competitor is the GeForce GT 730M at 3316, which the Intel part leads by 0.5%. The Intel GPU is also 1.4% ahead of the GeForce 920M (3287) but trails the Intel HD Graphics P4600 by 1.7% and the GeForce GT 740 by 2.9%.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Quadro 3000M is built on a 40 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 uses a 14 nm+ process at Intel. The Quadro has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die; the Intel part has a 123 mm² die with no transistor count listed. Transistor density for the Quadro is 5.9M / mm², while the Intel part has no listed density.

Memory configurations are fundamentally different: the Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Intel part uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. The Quadro’s memory clock is 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), while the Intel part has no dedicated memory clock.

Compute resources differ as well. The Quadro has 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Intel HD Graphics 530 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. The clock behavior is also distinct: the Quadro lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock, while the Intel part has a 350 MHz base clock and 950 MHz boost clock.

The Quadro’s TDP is 75 W, compared to Intel’s 15 W. The Quadro uses an MXM Module slot with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface; the Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface. Display outputs are Portable Device Dependent for the Quadro and Motherboard Dependent for the Intel chip. The Quadro has no power connectors listed, while the Intel part has none due to its integrated nature.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is based on the GF104 chip using the Fermi architecture, part of the Quadro Fermi-M generation (x000M). The Intel HD Graphics 530 uses the Skylake GT2 chip with Generation 9.0 architecture, part of the HD Graphics (Skylake) generation. These architectures are separated by roughly four years of design philosophy.

Fermi was NVIDIA’s professional compute architecture, emphasizing FP32 throughput and dedicated memory bandwidth. The Quadro’s 240 shading units and 40 TMUs reflect a design optimized for workstation tasks. Its 32 ROPs deliver the 4.500 GPixel/s pixel rate. The Fermi architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but lacks Vulkan support entirely.

Intel’s Generation 9.0 architecture is a unified graphics design for Skylake processors. It has fewer shading units (192) and TMUs (24) but compensates with a higher texture rate of 22.80 GTexel/s. The architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3, and includes FP16 support at 729.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, which Fermi lacks. The Intel part’s 3 ROPs are a significant limitation, explaining its lower pixel rate.

The production timeline reflects their architectural generations: the Quadro 3000M was released on 2011-02-21 and is end-of-life, with its predecessor listed as Quadro FX Mobile and successor as Quadro Kepler-M. The Intel HD Graphics 530 was released on 2015-08-31 and is also end-of-life, with no predecessor or successor listed. The Quadro’s 75 W TDP and MXM form factor indicate a professional mobile workstation design, while the Intel part’s 15 W TDP and IGP slot width point to an energy-efficient integrated solution for mainstream laptops.