Intel HD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 records an average benchmark score of 4075, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M averages 3316. This places the Intel part at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, ahead of the GT 730M's 20th percentile.

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

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 3587, which is 15.4% higher than the GT 730M's 3107. This is the largest performance gap recorded in the head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: Is the Vulkan performance difference significant?

A: No, it is marginal. The Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 3540 versus 3524 for the GT 730M, a delta of only 0.5%. In practical terms, these results are nearly identical.

Q: What process nodes do the two GPUs use?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 is built on Intel's 14 nm++ process, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M uses TSMC's 28 nm process. The Intel chip is also fabricated by Intel, whereas the NVIDIA chip is fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, giving a density of 10.8M per mm². The Intel HD Graphics 630's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GT 730M has a dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The HD Graphics 630 uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth listed as system dependent.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel HD Graphics 630 is an integrated graphics processor based on the Kaby Lake GT2 chip, using Intel's Generation 9.5 architecture. It is built on a 14 nm++ process at Intel's own foundry. The GT 730M is a discrete mobile GPU from NVIDIA, based on the GK107 chip with Kepler architecture, manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process.

The compute configurations diverge sharply. The HD Graphics 630 has 192 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and only 3 ROPs. The GT 730M offers 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having half the shading units, the Intel part reaches a higher texture rate: 24.00 GTexel/s versus 23.20 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA chip. The pixel rate, however, favors NVIDIA at 5.800 GPixel/s against Intel's 3.000 GPixel/s.

Clock behavior also differs. The Intel GPU runs at a 350 MHz base clock and boosts to 1000 MHz, while the GT 730M operates at a fixed 725 MHz with no boost. The NVIDIA part's memory clock is listed at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, whereas the Intel part's memory clock is system shared. FP32 throughput favors NVIDIA at 556.8 GFLOPS versus Intel's 384.0 GFLOPS, a 45% advantage for the Kepler chip. The Intel part does support FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1), a feature the GT 730M does not list.

The power envelope tells a clear story. The HD Graphics 630 is rated at 15 W TDP and uses a Ring Bus interface, typical for an IGP. The GT 730M is rated at 33 W and comes as an MXM module with PCIe 3.0 x16, requiring no power connectors. The NVIDIA part's predecessor and successor are recorded as GeForce 600M and GeForce 800M respectively, while the Intel part has no predecessor or successor listed.

API support shows a mixed picture. Both support DirectX 12 with the Intel part rated at 12_1 versus 11_0 for NVIDIA. OpenGL support matches at 4.6. Vulkan support goes to Intel at 1.3, while the GT 730M lists 1.2.175.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel HD Graphics 630 wins in compute-oriented workloads as measured by the database's benchmark suite. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 3587 beats the GT 730M's 3107 by a substantial margin, indicating better raw compute throughput in general-purpose GPU tasks. The Vulkan result is effectively a tie, with Intel ahead by only 0.5%, so neither card has a meaningful edge in that API.

The GT 730M's strengths are not visible in the recorded benchmark results, as it loses both head-to-head tests. However, its hardware specifications point to areas where it could differentiate. The dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory with a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth gives it a fixed memory pool, unlike the Intel part's system shared memory. The higher pixel rate of 5.800 GPixel/s suggests it can handle pixel-heavy rendering stages better. The larger ROP count of 16 versus 3 also supports this interpretation, though the database does not include a direct test measuring pixel throughput.

The data shows two wins for the Intel part and zero for the GT 730M in the head-to-head benchmark suite. The OpenCL gap is the defining result: 15.4% is a meaningful difference in compute performance. The Vulkan test is too close to call, with a delta below 1%.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications differ in several key fields. The process node is 14 nm++ for Intel versus 28 nm for NVIDIA. The GT 730M has recorded transistor count of 1,270 million, die size of 118 mm², and transistor density of 10.8M per mm²; none are recorded for the Intel part.

Clock speeds differ: Intel runs at 350 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost, while NVIDIA runs at 725 MHz base and 725 MHz boost. The memory clock is system shared for Intel, while NVIDIA lists 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. Memory size is system shared for Intel versus 2 GB for NVIDIA. Memory type is system shared versus DDR3. Bus width is system shared versus 128 bit. Bandwidth is system dependent versus 28.80 GB/s.

Compute unit counts differ: shading units are 192 versus 384, TMUs are 24 versus 32, and ROPs are 3 versus 16. Pixel rate is 3.000 GPixel/s versus 5.800 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 24.00 GTexel/s versus 23.20 GTexel/s. FP32 is 384.0 GFLOPS versus 556.8 GFLOPS. FP16 is 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) for Intel, with none listed for NVIDIA.

TDP is 15 W versus 33 W. Slot width is IGP versus MXM Module. Power connectors are none for NVIDIA, none listed for Intel. Bus interface is Ring Bus versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are motherboard dependent versus portable device dependent.

DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0). Vulkan support is 1.3 versus 1.2.175. The release dates differ: the Intel part launched in 2016-08-29, while the GT 730M launched in 2013-01-19. Both are end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 3587 against the GT 730M's 3107, a 15.4% advantage for Intel. This is the most decisive result in the comparison. The margin is large enough that it likely reflects the architectural efficiency of the Generation 9.5 design, which manages to outperform a Kepler chip with more shading units and higher FP32 peak.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Intel part scores 3540 and the GT 730M scores 3524, a delta of only 0.5%. This near tie is notable given the underlying hardware differences. The GT 730M's higher raw FP32 throughput (556.8 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS) does not translate into a Vulkan advantage, suggesting driver overhead or architecture-specific efficiency plays a larger role than peak compute in this workload.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. Intel's average of 4075 sits above the GT 730M's 3316. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at 4093 (0.4% ahead of Intel) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M at 4151 (1.8% ahead). The GT 730M's nearest rivals include the Intel HD Graphics 530 at 3332 (0.5% ahead of the GT 730M) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 at 3210 (3.3% behind). This places the two GPUs in different performance tiers despite both being low-end parts.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 also has a Geekbench Metal score of 5099, a test not recorded for the GT 730M. This additional data point contributes to its higher average score.

The Verdict

The benchmark data favors the Intel HD Graphics 630 in both recorded head-to-head tests. The OpenCL win of 15.4% is decisive, and the Vulkan win of 0.5% is effectively a tie. The Intel part's average score of 4075 versus 3316 for the GT 730M, along with its higher percentile rank of 24 versus 20, makes it the stronger performer in this comparison.

Users should choose the Intel HD Graphics 630 if their workloads rely on OpenCL compute, where it demonstrates a clear advantage. Its lower TDP of 15 W also makes it suitable for power-constrained systems. The GT 730M offers a dedicated 2 GB memory pool, which may be preferable in scenarios where system memory bandwidth is a bottleneck, but the recorded benchmarks do not capture such an advantage. The GT 730M's higher pixel rate and ROP count suggest it might handle certain pixel-heavy tasks better, but no benchmark in the database confirms this.

The GT 730M's only recorded advantage is in raw specification territory: more shading units, more ROPs, higher FP32, and dedicated memory. None of these translate into a benchmark win. The Intel part, despite fewer resources, achieves better results through architectural efficiency and a more modern process node. For anyone choosing between these two end-of-life GPUs based on the database's measurements, the Intel HD Graphics 630 is the recommended pick.