Intel HD Graphics 630 vs Intel HD Graphics P4600 Comparison

Intel HD Graphics 630 and Intel HD Graphics P4600 are both integrated graphics solutions from Intel, but they belong to different generations and target different market segments. The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in the Intel HD Graphics 630, which posts a higher average benchmark score, a better percentile ranking, and a direct head-to-head victory over its older counterpart. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural differences, and specification gaps to help determine which GPU is better suited for specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 3587, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 scores 3389. The Intel HD Graphics 630 wins by a delta of 5.8 percent. This is a modest but consistent margin, indicating that the newer architecture provides a tangible compute advantage in OpenCL workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the Intel HD Graphics 630 has an average benchmark score of 4075 across three tests: Geekbench Metal (5099), Geekbench OpenCL (3587), and Geekbench Vulkan (3540). The Intel HD Graphics P4600, by contrast, has only one recorded benchmark score, which is the Geekbench OpenCL result of 3389, giving it an average benchmark score of 3389. The difference in average scores is 686 points, or roughly 20 percent higher for the Intel HD Graphics 630.

The percentile ranking reinforces this gap. The Intel HD Graphics 630 sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 sits at the 20th percentile. While both are low-end integrated solutions, the Intel HD Graphics 630 is positioned higher relative to the entire GPU landscape.

When comparing to nearest rivals, the Intel HD Graphics 630's average score of 4075 places it within 1 percent of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093, delta of -0.4 percent), and ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033, delta of 1 percent) and the AMD FirePro M4150 (4013, delta of 1.5 percent). It trails the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M (4151) by 1.8 percent. The Intel HD Graphics P4600's average score of 3389 is slightly behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431, delta of -1.2 percent) and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M (3434, delta of -1.3 percent), while it leads the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332) by 1.7 percent and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M (3316) by 2.2 percent.

The head-to-head result is the only direct comparison available, and it shows the Intel HD Graphics 630 winning. The wins tally in the database is 1 for the Intel HD Graphics 630 and 0 for the Intel HD Graphics P4600. No benchmark in the database shows the P4600 ahead.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel HD Graphics 630 wins in every measurable category. It has a higher average benchmark score (4075 versus 3389), a higher percentile ranking (24th versus 20th), and it wins the sole head-to-head OpenCL test. The 5.8 percent delta in OpenCL is meaningful for compute tasks that rely on general-purpose GPU processing, such as video encoding, image filters, or scientific calculations that can leverage OpenCL.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 also supports additional APIs that the P4600 does not. Specifically, the 630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the P4600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. This means the 630 is better suited for modern applications and games that use newer graphics APIs, particularly Vulkan 1.3 features or DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1. The P4600's older API support limits its compatibility with contemporary software.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 also has a higher boost clock (1000 MHz versus 1200 MHz for the P4600? Actually, the P4600 has a higher boost clock at 1200 MHz, while the 630 boosts to 1000 MHz). However, the 630 compensates with more shading units (192 versus 160), more texture mapping units (24 versus 20), and more raster output units (3 versus 2). The pixel rate of the 630 is 3.000 GPixel/s versus 2.400 GPixel/s for the P4600, a 25 percent advantage. The texture rate is identical at 24.00 GTexel/s for both, despite the P4600 having fewer TMUs, because the P4600's higher clock speed balances the throughput.

For users who prioritize compute performance, the Intel HD Graphics 630 is the clear choice. For users who need lower power consumption, the 630 also has a significant advantage: its TDP is 15 W, while the P4600 is rated at 84 W. This makes the 630 far more suitable for thin-and-light laptops, ultrabooks, or any system where power efficiency is critical. The P4600's higher TDP suggests it was designed for desktop or workstation platforms with more thermal headroom, but that comes at the cost of efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The Intel HD Graphics 630 is built on the Kaby Lake GT2 chip, using the Generation 9.5 architecture, which Intel labels "HD Graphics (Kaby Lake)". It is fabricated on a 14 nm++ process node. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 uses the Haswell GT2 chip, with the Generation 7.5 architecture, labeled "HD Graphics-W (Haswell)", and is fabricated on a 22 nm process node. The jump from 22 nm to 14 nm++ represents a significant die shrink, which typically allows for higher transistor density, lower power consumption, and improved performance per watt.

The process node difference is likely a major factor in the TDP disparity: the 630 consumes only 15 W, while the P4600 consumes 84 W. Even though the P4600 has a higher boost clock (1200 MHz versus 1000 MHz), the newer process node allows the 630 to achieve competitive performance at a fraction of the power draw.

The shading unit count differs: the 630 has 192 shading units, while the P4600 has 160. This is a 20 percent increase in shader count for the 630. Similarly, the 630 has 24 TMUs versus 20 on the P4600, a 20 percent increase. The ROP count is 3 on the 630 versus 2 on the P4600, a 50 percent increase. These architectural changes directly contribute to the higher pixel rate (3.000 GPixel/s versus 2.400 GPixel/s) while maintaining the same texture rate (24.00 GTexel/s for both).

The FP32 performance is identical for both GPUs at 384.0 GFLOPS. This is interesting because the 630 has more shading units but a lower boost clock, resulting in the same raw single-precision compute throughput. However, the 630 supports FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the P4600 has no recorded FP16 capability. This means the 630 can handle half-precision workloads more efficiently, which is relevant for certain AI or machine learning inference tasks that use FP16.

Both GPUs use System Shared memory, meaning they rely on the host system's RAM rather than dedicated VRAM. The memory bus width is also System Shared, and bandwidth is System Dependent. This means actual memory performance varies based on the platform's memory configuration (e.g., DDR3 versus DDR4, dual-channel versus single-channel). Neither GPU has dedicated memory.

The bus interface is "Ring Bus" for both, and both are integrated graphics (IGP) with motherboard-dependent display outputs. Neither GPU has dedicated power connectors or a suggested PSU, which is typical for integrated solutions.

The API support differs significantly. The 630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The P4600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0. The DirectX feature level difference (12_1 versus 11_1) means the 630 can access more advanced DX12 features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer-ordered views. The OpenGL version jump from 4.3 to 4.6 adds support for newer GL extensions. The Vulkan version jump from 1.0 to 1.3 is substantial, bringing features like dynamic rendering, descriptor indexing, and improved synchronization.

The release dates also reflect the generational gap: the Intel HD Graphics 630 was released on August 29, 2016, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 was released on May 31, 2013. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

• Process node: 14 nm++ (630) versus 22 nm (P4600)
• Boost clock: 1000 MHz (630) versus 1200 MHz (P4600)
• Shading units: 192 (630) versus 160 (P4600)
• Texture mapping units: 24 (630) versus 20 (P4600)
• Raster output units: 3 (630) versus 2 (P4600)
• Pixel rate: 3.000 GPixel/s (630) versus 2.400 GPixel/s (P4600)
• FP16 performance: 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) on the 630, none recorded on the P4600
• TDP: 15 W (630) versus 84 W (P4600)
• DirectX support: 12 (12_1) on the 630 versus 12 (11_1) on the P4600
• OpenGL support: 4.6 (630) versus 4.3 (P4600)
• Vulkan support: 1.3 (630) versus 1.0 (P4600)

The base clocks are identical at 350 MHz for both. The texture rate is identical at 24.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is identical at 384.0 GFLOPS. Both use System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. Both are end-of-life, use Ring Bus, have motherboard-dependent display outputs, and have no launch MSRP recorded.

The TDP difference is the most striking specification gap: 15 W versus 84 W. This makes the 630 suitable for passively cooled or low-power devices, while the P4600 requires more substantial cooling. The higher boost clock on the P4600 (1200 MHz versus 1000 MHz) does not translate into a performance win, as the 630's additional shaders and ROPs compensate, leading to the 5.8 percent OpenCL victory.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 has an average benchmark score of 4075, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 has an average score of 3389. The 630 is approximately 20 percent higher.

Q: How do the two compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 3587, and the Intel HD Graphics P4600 scores 3389. The 630 wins by a 5.8 percent margin.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 has a TDP of 15 W, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 has a TDP of 84 W. This makes the 630 significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern APIs?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan 1.0.

Q: Do they have the same FP32 performance?

A: Yes, both GPUs deliver 384.0 GFLOPS of FP32 compute. However, the 630 also supports FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS, while the P4600 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 is built on a 14 nm++ process, while the Intel HD Graphics P4600 uses a 22 nm process. This is a major architectural generational difference.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel HD Graphics 630 is the superior GPU. It wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, holds a higher average score, ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile, and offers newer architecture with better API support and dramatically lower power consumption.

For compute workloads, the 630's 5.8 percent OpenCL lead, combined with its Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1) support, makes it the better choice for modern applications. The P4600's older API stack limits its utility in current software environments.

For power-sensitive systems, the 630's 15 W TDP versus the P4600's 84 W TDP is a decisive factor. The 630 can be integrated into thin laptops, mini PCs, or fanless designs, while the P4600 requires a more robust thermal solution.

For users with legacy software that solely relies on OpenGL 4.3 or Vulkan 1.0, the P4600 might still function, but the 630 is backward compatible and simply performs better in the recorded data. There is no scenario in the database where the P4600 outperforms the 630.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 is the recommended choice for anyone comparing these two integrated graphics solutions, based on benchmark performance, architectural advantages, and efficiency. The P4600 remains a functional older part, but it falls short in every measurable metric recorded.