Intel HD Graphics 530 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 leads with an average benchmark score of 3964, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 averages 3332. That places the Quadro K2000 in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, versus the 20th percentile for the Intel part.

Q: How large is the gap between the two in the Vulkan test?

A: The Quadro K2000 scores 4191 in geekbench_vulkan, which is 194.7% higher than the Intel HD Graphics 530's 1422. This is the single biggest win for either GPU across all three recorded tests.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics 530 beat the Quadro K2000 in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Intel part wins the geekbench_metal test with a score of 5025 versus 3630, a delta of 27.8% in Intel's favor. This is the only test where Intel comes out ahead.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU according to the database?

A: The Quadro K2000's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, 0.3% higher), followed by the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, 0.2% lower). The Intel HD Graphics 530's nearest rival is the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389, 1.7% higher), with the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M (3316, 0.5% lower) close behind.

Q: How do the two GPUs differ in memory configuration?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics 530 uses System Shared memory, with bus width and bandwidth listed as System Shared and System Dependent respectively.

Q: What is the transistor count for each chip?

A: The Quadro K2000's GK107 chip contains 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The Intel HD Graphics 530's Skylake GT2 chip has no transistor count recorded in the database, but its die size is 123 mm².

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 uses the Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,270 million transistors packed into a 118 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The Intel HD Graphics 530 uses the Generation 9.0 architecture (Skylake GT2), manufactured on Intel's 14 nm+ process with a 123 mm² die, though the database does not record its transistor count or density.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The Quadro K2000 deploys 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. This means the NVIDIA part has exactly double the shading units and a clear advantage in texture and pixel processing hardware.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro K2000 has no base or boost clock recorded, with its memory running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Intel part has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 950 MHz, with memory clock listed as System Shared. The Intel GPU's boost clock suggests it can reach a higher operating frequency than the Quadro's fixed memory clock, but the NVIDIA part's dedicated GDDR5 memory provides a substantial bandwidth advantage.

The memory systems are architecturally distinct. The Quadro K2000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, a conventional discrete GPU design. The Intel HD Graphics 530 is an integrated GPU with System Shared memory, no dedicated VRAM, and bandwidth described as System Dependent, meaning performance is tied to the host system's memory configuration.

The API support tells an interesting story. The Quadro K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel HD Graphics 530 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Intel's part has the newer DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, while the Quadro's older feature set reflects its 2013 release versus Intel's 2015 launch.

Power and physical design are polar opposites. The Quadro K2000 is a single-slot discrete card with a 51 W TDP, no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 250 W, a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, and dimensions of 202 mm length and 111 mm height. The Intel HD Graphics 530 is an IGP with a 15 W TDP, a Ring Bus interface, motherboard-dependent display outputs, and no recorded dimensions or power connector requirements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split across the three tests. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins two of the three benchmarks, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 takes one.

The most dramatic result is in geekbench_vulkan, where the Quadro K2000 scores 4191 against Intel's 1422. That is a 194.7% advantage for NVIDIA, the largest delta in the entire comparison. This suggests the Kepler architecture's Vulkan implementation is far more mature or efficient for this workload than Intel's Generation 9.0 part. For context, the Quadro K2000's Vulkan score alone is nearly three times the Intel GPU's score.

In geekbench_opencl, the Quadro K2000 again leads, scoring 4071 versus 3550 for the Intel HD Graphics 530, a 14.7% difference. This is a much narrower margin than Vulkan, but it still represents a solid win for the discrete card. The OpenCL result aligns with the Quadro's higher raw compute resources: 732.7 GFLOPS FP32 versus 364.8 GFLOPS for Intel.

The Intel HD Graphics 530's sole victory comes in geekbench_metal, where it scores 5025 against the Quadro K2000's 3630. That is a 27.8% margin in Intel's favor. This is notable because Metal is a low-level graphics API, and the Intel part's newer architecture and higher boost clock (950 MHz) may contribute to its stronger showing here. Interestingly, the Intel GPU's Metal score is also higher than its own OpenCL score by a wide margin (5025 versus 3550), while the Quadro K2000's Metal score is its lowest of the three tests (3630).

The overall average benchmark score reflects these results: the Quadro K2000 averages 3964 across all tests, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 averages 3332. The Quadro's wins are decisive in Vulkan and moderate in OpenCL, while Intel's Metal win, though large, is not enough to overcome the cumulative deficit.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 | Intel HD Graphics 530 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Generation 9.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm+ |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Shading Units | 384 | 192 |

| TMUs | 32 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 3 |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Pixel Rate | 7.632 GPixel/s | 2.850 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 30.53 GTexel/s | 22.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 732.7 GFLOPS | 364.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not recorded | 729.6 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 51 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Motherboard Dependent |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2015-08-31 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not recorded |

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a nuanced picture that defies a simple "which is better" answer. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins the overall average score battle by a significant margin (3964 versus 3332), and it dominates in Vulkan and OpenCL workloads. The Intel HD Graphics 530 counters with a strong Metal performance and a much lower power draw. The Quadro K2000 sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel part sits at the 20th percentile, meaning the Quadro is not only ahead of the Intel GPU but also closer to the middle of the overall distribution.

For users prioritizing compute workloads in OpenCL or Vulkan-based applications, the Quadro K2000 is the clear choice based on recorded scores. Its 194.7% Vulkan lead and 14.7% OpenCL lead are decisive. The Quadro also offers a mature discrete memory subsystem with 2 GB of GDDR5 and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, which is critical for professional workloads that rely on consistent memory performance.

The Intel HD Graphics 530's advantage lies in its Metal performance and efficiency. Its 5025 Metal score is 27.8% higher than the Quadro's, and its 15 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Quadro's 51 W. This makes it a sensible option for systems where power consumption is the primary constraint and Metal-based applications are the main workload.

The release timeline also matters. The Quadro K2000 launched on 2013-02-28 with a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the Intel HD Graphics 530 launched on 2015-08-31 with no recorded MSRP. The newer Intel part benefits from a smaller process node (14 nm+ versus 28 nm) and newer API support, which explains its Metal strength.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins in: Vulkan workloads, where its 4191 score is 194.7% higher than Intel's 1422. OpenCL workloads, where its 4071 score beats Intel's 3550 by 14.7%. Raw compute throughput, as reflected in its 732.7 GFLOPS FP32 versus Intel's 364.8 GFLOPS. Memory bandwidth, with 64.00 GB/s of dedicated GDDR5 bandwidth versus Intel's System Dependent memory. Overall average benchmark performance, with 3964 versus 3332. It also holds the advantage in pixel rate (7.632 GPixel/s versus 2.850 GPixel/s) and texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s versus 22.80 GTexel/s).

Intel HD Graphics 530 wins in: Metal workloads, where its 5025 score beats the Quadro's 3630 by 27.8%. Power efficiency, with a 15 W TDP versus 51 W. Modern API support, with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 versus the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. FP16 compute, offering 729.6 GFLOPS (2:1) while the Quadro has no recorded FP16 capability. The Intel part also has a smaller process node at 14 nm+ versus 28 nm, which contributes to its efficiency profile.

The database records two wins for the Quadro K2000 and one for the Intel HD Graphics 530. That 2:1 split in wins, combined with the magnitude of the Vulkan victory, gives the NVIDIA part the stronger overall case in the recorded data. However, the Intel GPU's Metal dominance and drastically lower power draw make it the more compelling choice for Metal-centric, power-sensitive systems.