Intel HD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA GeForce 825M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between these two parts is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is close. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 3587. That gives the NVIDIA part a 2.9% edge in this single test. It is a narrow victory, but a victory nonetheless.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the Intel HD Graphics 630 has more data points. Its Geekbench Metal score is 5099, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 3540. These two scores bracket the OpenCL result, showing that the Intel part's performance is relatively consistent across different API workloads. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M, by contrast, only has a single benchmark score recorded, making it harder to gauge its consistency.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Intel HD Graphics 630 averages 4075 across its three recorded tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M averages 3694 from its single test. This puts the Intel part 10.3% higher in average score, but that figure is skewed by the inclusion of the Metal test, where the Intel part performs particularly well.

When placed against the wider GPU landscape, both parts sit in the lower tier. The Intel HD Graphics 630 lands in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M sits in the 22nd percentile. These are close positions, indicating that neither part is going to impress in demanding gaming or compute workloads.

The nearest rivals for the Intel part are instructive. The AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB scores 4093, which is 0.4% ahead of the Intel part. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4151, 1.8% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4033, 1% behind, and the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013, 1.5% behind. The Intel part sits in the middle of this pack, trading blows with last-generation mobile discrete GPUs.

For the NVIDIA GeForce 825M, its nearest rivals cluster even tighter. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M scores 3717, 0.6% ahead, and the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718, also 0.6% ahead. The AMD Radeon HD 6770 scores 3649, 1.2% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M scores 3740, 1.2% ahead. The GeForce 825M is squarely in the middle of a very competitive group of older discrete parts.

The head-to-head data shows the NVIDIA part winning the only direct comparison, but the overall picture is more nuanced. The Intel part has a higher average score and a slightly better percentile ranking, driven largely by its strong Metal showing. In raw compute terms, however, the NVIDIA part holds a small but consistent edge in OpenCL.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel HD Graphics 630 is built on the Kaby Lake GT2 chip, using Intel's Generation 9.5 architecture. It is fabricated on a 14 nm++ process at Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M uses the GK208 chip, based on the Kepler 2.0 architecture, and is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process difference is significant: Intel's 14 nm++ is a mature, refined node, while NVIDIA's 28 nm is an older, larger geometry.

The transistor counts reflect this gap. The NVIDIA chip packs 1,020 million transistors into an 87 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 11.7M per mm². The Intel part does not have publicly listed transistor or die size data in the provided information, but its integrated nature on a CPU package means it shares silicon with the processor cores.

Clock speeds tell an interesting story. The Intel part has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz. The NVIDIA part runs at a base of 850 MHz and boosts to 941 MHz. Despite the Intel part's much lower base clock, its boost clock is actually higher than the NVIDIA's boost. This suggests the Intel part is designed to burst to higher frequencies when needed, while the NVIDIA part runs more consistently.

The memory systems are completely different. The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses system shared memory, with a bus width and type that are both system dependent. Its bandwidth is also system dependent, meaning performance varies heavily based on the host system's RAM configuration. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M has a dedicated 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The memory clock is 900 MHz, translating to 1800 Mbps effective. Dedicated memory gives the NVIDIA part a significant advantage in memory bandwidth consistency, though the 64-bit bus is narrow.

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the NVIDIA part. The GeForce 825M has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Intel HD Graphics 630 has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 3.000 GPixel/s for Intel, and a texture rate of 30.11 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 throughput, the NVIDIA part delivers 722.7 GFLOPS against the Intel part's 384.0 GFLOPS. The Intel part does support FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, a feature the NVIDIA part lacks entirely.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The Intel part is rated at 15 W TDP, while the NVIDIA part draws 33 W. The Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and requires no power connectors. Both parts are marked as end-of-life, but the Intel part was released on 2016-08-29, while the NVIDIA part came earlier on 2014-01-26.

API support shows some generational differences. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) while the NVIDIA part only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The Intel part also supports Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA part supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The NVIDIA part's predecessor is the GeForce 700M, and its successor is the GeForce 900M.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different use cases. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, posting a 2.9% higher OpenCL score. It also has significantly more raw compute horsepower, with 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the Intel part's 384.0 GFLOPS. For pure compute workloads, the NVIDIA part is the stronger choice.

The Intel HD Graphics 630, however, shows a higher average benchmark score of 4075 versus 3694, driven largely by its Geekbench Metal score of 5099. This suggests the Intel part may be better optimized for certain API workloads, particularly Metal. Its lower 15 W TDP also makes it a much more power-efficient option, though it comes with the caveat of system shared memory.

For gaming and general graphics, the NVIDIA part's dedicated memory and higher ROP count (8 versus 3) give it a structural advantage. The pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s is more than double the Intel part's 3.000 GPixel/s. This should translate to better fill-rate-bound scenarios.

For integrated systems where power efficiency and simplicity are paramount, the Intel part is the obvious choice. It consumes less than half the power of the NVIDIA part and requires no dedicated memory allocation. The 14 nm++ process node also gives it a modern manufacturing advantage.

The percentile rankings are close, with the Intel part at 24% and the NVIDIA part at 22%. This indicates that in the broader GPU landscape, neither part is particularly competitive with modern discrete solutions. Both are firmly in entry-level territory.

Users who need consistent memory bandwidth and higher raw throughput should choose the NVIDIA GeForce 825M. Users who prioritize power efficiency and API flexibility, particularly with Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12_1 support, should lean toward the Intel HD Graphics 630.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel HD Graphics 630 | NVIDIA GeForce 825M |

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

| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | Kepler 2.0 |

| Process Node | 14 nm++ | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 87 mm² |

| Base Clock | 350 MHz | 850 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1000 MHz | 941 MHz |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 384 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| ROPs | 3 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 3.000 GPixel/s | 7.528 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.00 GTexel/s | 30.11 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 384.0 GFLOPS | 722.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 15 W | 33 W |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

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

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2016-08-29 | 2014-01-26 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | Not listed | GeForce 900M |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the direct OpenCL benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 825M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 3694, compared to the Intel HD Graphics 630's score of 3587. This represents a 2.9% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 825M has 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, nearly double the Intel HD Graphics 630's 384.0 GFLOPS. The Intel part does support FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS, which the NVIDIA part does not offer.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M has a TDP of 33 W. The Intel part uses less than half the power of the NVIDIA part.

Q: How do their memory systems differ?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M has 1024 MB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do the GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 sits in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M sits in the 22nd percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 4075 and 3694, respectively.