Intel HD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

Intel HD Graphics 630 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they represent fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The Intel part is a modern integrated GPU from the Kaby Lake generation, while the Quadro 2000 is a dedicated workstation card from NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture. Benchmark data shows a single head-to-head comparison, with the Quadro 2000 taking the win, but the broader picture reveals a closer contest than the generational gap might suggest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 3587. The Quadro 2000 wins this round, with a delta of -8% relative to the Intel part (meaning the Intel GPU is 8% slower in this workload). This result is notable because the Quadro 2000 is a much older product, yet it still outperforms the integrated solution in this compute-oriented test. The OpenCL score reflects raw throughput capabilities, and the Quadro’s dedicated memory and higher FP32 rate appear to give it an edge here.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all available tests, the Intel HD Graphics 630 has an average score of 4075, while the Quadro 2000 averages 3898. This puts the Intel part approximately 4.5% ahead on average, despite losing the single OpenCL head-to-head. The Intel GPU’s average is buoyed by additional benchmark results in Metal and Vulkan, where it scores 5099 and 3540 respectively. The Quadro 2000 has no corresponding Metal or Vulkan scores in the data, so its average rests solely on the OpenCL result.

The percentile rankings also tell a nuanced story. The Intel HD Graphics 630 sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000 is at the 23rd percentile. These are nearly identical positions, indicating that both parts land in the same performance tier relative to the broader GPU landscape. The Intel part’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, with a delta of -0.4%, meaning the Intel GPU is essentially tied with that card. The Quadro 2000’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics, with a delta of 0.4%, placing the Quadro slightly ahead of that integrated solution.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The Intel HD Graphics 630 is built on Intel’s Generation 9.5 architecture, using the Kaby Lake GT2 chip, and fabricated on a 14 nm++ process at Intel’s own foundry. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 uses the older Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This process difference is significant: the Intel part’s 14 nm++ node allows for much higher transistor density and efficiency, while the Quadro’s 40 nm node is comparatively large and power-hungry.

The Quadro 2000 has a disclosed transistor count of 1,170 million on a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². The Intel HD Graphics 630 does not have transistor or die size data listed, but its 14 nm++ process would inherently provide a much tighter packing of components. In terms of memory, the two are completely different. The Intel GPU uses system shared memory, with bandwidth that is system dependent. The Quadro 2000 features 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory is a crucial advantage for the Quadro in memory-intensive workloads.

Both parts have 192 shading units, but the similarity ends there. The Intel HD Graphics 630 has 24 texture mapping units (TMUs) and only 3 raster output pipelines (ROPs), while the Quadro 2000 has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This gives the Quadro a much higher pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s compared to the Intel’s 3.000 GPixel/s. However, the Intel part has a higher texture rate at 24.00 GTexel/s versus the Quadro’s 20.00 GTexel/s, thanks to its higher base clock. The Intel GPU’s FP32 performance is 384.0 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 2000 reaches 480.0 GFLOPS, a 25% advantage for the NVIDIA part. The Intel GPU also supports FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the Quadro lacks entirely.

Power consumption is another major divider. The Intel HD Graphics 630 has a TDP of just 15 W, while the Quadro 2000 draws 62 W. The Quadro is a single-slot card measuring 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with no power connectors required and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Intel part is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width, using a Ring Bus interface. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs, whereas the Intel GPU’s display outputs are motherboard dependent.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice between these two depends heavily on the use case and platform constraints. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 3898 versus 3587 for the Intel HD Graphics 630. It also offers higher FP32 performance (480.0 GFLOPS vs 384.0 GFLOPS), more ROPs (16 vs 3), and dedicated GDDR5 memory with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. This makes it the stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks that rely on raw throughput and memory bandwidth, particularly in OpenCL workloads.

However, the Intel HD Graphics 630 has a higher average benchmark score (4075 vs 3898) and supports modern API features that the Quadro lacks, including DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0), Vulkan 1.3 versus no Vulkan support, and FP16 compute. The Intel part also consumes dramatically less power at 15 W versus 62 W, making it far more suitable for low-power or mobile systems. The Intel GPU’s 24th percentile ranking is essentially tied with the Quadro’s 23rd percentile, so neither part has a dominant performance position.

For users building a new system with an integrated GPU, the Intel HD Graphics 630 is the logical pick due to its negligible power draw and modern API support. For those needing a dedicated workstation card with dedicated memory and higher pixel throughput, the Quadro 2000 offers tangible benefits, especially in OpenCL compute. The data does not support a clear overall winner; it supports a situational one.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Manufacturer: Intel vs NVIDIA
• Chip: Kaby Lake GT2 vs GF106
• Architecture: Generation 9.5 vs Fermi
• Generation: HD Graphics (Kaby Lake) vs Quadro Fermi (x000)
• Process Node: 14 nm++ vs 40 nm
• Foundry: Intel vs TSMC
• Transistors: Not listed vs 1,170 million
• Die Size: Not listed vs 238 mm²
• Transistor Density: Not listed vs 4.9M / mm²
• Base Clock: 350 MHz vs Not listed
• Boost Clock: 1000 MHz vs Not listed
• Memory Clock: System Shared vs 650 MHz / 2.6 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: System Shared vs 1024 MB
• Memory Type: System Shared vs GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: System Shared vs 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent vs 41.60 GB/s
• TMUs: 24 vs 32
• ROPs: 3 vs 16
• Pixel Rate: 3.000 GPixel/s vs 5.000 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 24.00 GTexel/s vs 20.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 384.0 GFLOPS vs 480.0 GFLOPS
• FP16: 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) vs Not listed
• TDP: 15 W vs 62 W
• Slot Width: IGP vs Single-slot
• Suggested PSU: Not listed vs 250 W
• Bus Interface: Ring Bus vs PCIe 2.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Motherboard Dependent vs 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
• DirectX: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan: 1.3 vs Not listed
• Dimensions: Not listed vs 178 mm length, 111 mm height
• Release Date: 2016-08-29 vs 2010-12-23
• Predecessor: Not listed vs Quadro FX Tesla
• Successor: Not listed vs Quadro Kepler
• Launch MSRP: Not listed vs 599 USD (stated once as launch MSRP)

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the direct benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 wins the only head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 3898 versus 3587 for the Intel HD Graphics 630, a delta of -8% for the Intel part.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics 630 have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, the Intel HD Graphics 630 has a higher average benchmark score of 4075 compared to the Quadro 2000’s 3898, driven by additional scores in Geekbench Metal (5099) and Geekbench Vulkan (3540) tests that the Quadro does not have.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W, making the Intel part significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support.

Q: What are their percentile rankings among all GPUs?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 is at the 24th percentile, and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 is at the 23rd percentile, indicating they perform in nearly the same tier relative to all other GPUs.