Intel HD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for those deciding between the Intel HD Graphics 630 and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D. The Quadro 2000D holds a lead in the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 3930 against the Intel’s 3587. That is an 8.7% advantage for NVIDIA. The Intel part, however, counters with broader API support and a much newer feature set. The Quadro’s win is narrow, and the Intel chip’s overall average benchmark score of 4075 across three tests actually exceeds the Quadro’s single-score average of 3930. The verdict from the data is that the Quadro 2000D is the pick for raw compute in legacy OpenCL workloads, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 is the more versatile choice for modern graphics APIs and power-constrained systems. The Quadro’s 23rd percentile ranking versus the Intel’s 24th percentile shows they sit in the same performance tier, making the decision hinge on workload specifics rather than outright dominance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational. Intel’s HD Graphics 630 uses the Kaby Lake GT2 chip built on Generation 9.5 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm++ process at Intel’s own foundry. NVIDIA’s Quadro 2000D uses the GF106 chip with Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is stark: 14 nm++ versus 40 nm. The Quadro’s transistor count is listed at 1,170 million on a 238 mm² die, yielding a density of 4.9M transistors per mm². The Intel chip does not list transistor counts or die size in the data. Clock behavior differs fundamentally as well. The Intel part has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz, while the Quadro’s core clocks are not listed at all — only its memory clock of 650 MHz, translating to 2.6 Gbps effective. The Intel’s memory is system-shared, with its bandwidth described as system dependent. The Quadro has dedicated 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. Shader counts match at 192 shading units each, but the texture and pixel pipelines diverge. Intel has 24 TMUs and just 3 ROPs, while NVIDIA has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. That ROP disparity is significant for fill-rate-bound tasks. The Intel’s pixel rate is 3.000 GPixel/s versus the Quadro’s 5.000 GPixel/s. Texture rates are closer: 24.00 GTexel/s for Intel, 20.00 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 compute favors the Quadro at 480.0 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS, but the Intel part supports FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the Fermi chip lacks entirely. API support shows Intel ahead with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro only achieves DirectX 12 (11_0) and lists no Vulkan support. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla, with the Quadro Kepler as its successor, while the Intel part lists no predecessor or successor. The Quadro is a single-slot card measuring 178 mm in length and 111 mm in height, with 2x DVI outputs and no power connectors, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU. The Intel is an IGP with motherboard-dependent outputs and a 15 W TDP versus the Quadro’s 62 W TDP. The Quadro connects via PCIe 2.0 x16, while the Intel uses a Ring Bus interface.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 has an average benchmark score of 4075 across three tests (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan). The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has an average score of 3930 from a single Geekbench OpenCL test. Intel leads by 145 points, or roughly 3.7% on this metric.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000D support Vulkan?

A: No. The data lists no Vulkan API support for the Quadro 2000D. The Intel HD Graphics 630 supports Vulkan 1.3. This is a clear feature advantage for the Intel part in modern cross-platform graphics workloads.

Q: How do the two compare in memory configuration?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth. The Quadro 2000D has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 41.60 GB/s. The Quadro’s dedicated memory is a distinct advantage for workloads needing consistent bandwidth without competing with the CPU.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 is rated at 15 W, whereas the Quadro 2000D is rated at 62 W. The Quadro also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Intel IGP has no such requirement. This makes the Intel part dramatically more power-efficient for mobile or low-power systems.

Q: Which GPU has better pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro 2000D achieves 5.000 GPixel/s, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 achieves 3.000 GPixel/s. That is a 66.7% advantage for NVIDIA. The Quadro’s 16 ROPs versus Intel’s 3 ROPs explains this gap.

Q: Are they comparable in overall performance percentiles?

A: Yes. The Intel HD Graphics 630 sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, and the Quadro 2000D sits at the 23rd percentile. Both are near the bottom of the overall performance distribution, confirming they are entry-level parts.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The process node differs: Intel uses 14 nm++, NVIDIA uses 40 nm. The foundry differs: Intel for the HD 630, TSMC for the Quadro. Transistor data exists only for the Quadro: 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die with 4.9M / mm² density. The Intel lists no transistor or die size data. Clock speeds differ: Intel has a 350 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost, while the Quadro lists no base or boost clocks, only a 650 MHz memory clock (2.6 Gbps effective). Memory configuration differs fundamentally: Intel uses system-shared memory of system-shared type and bus width, with system-dependent bandwidth; the Quadro has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units match at 192, but TMUs differ: Intel has 24, Quadro has 32. ROPs differ sharply: Intel has 3, Quadro has 16. Pixel rate: 3.000 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 24.00 GTexel/s versus 20.00 GTexel/s. FP32: 384.0 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS. FP16: Intel has 768.0 GFLOPS, Quadro has none. TDP: 15 W versus 62 W. Slot width: IGP versus single-slot. Power connectors: none for both, but the Quadro lists a suggested PSU of 250 W. Bus interface: Ring Bus versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs: motherboard dependent versus 2x DVI. DirectX support: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0). OpenGL is the same at 4.6. Vulkan: 1.3 for Intel, none for Quadro. Release dates differ: Intel on 2016-08-29, Quadro on 2011-10-04. The Quadro lists a predecessor (Quadro FX Tesla) and successor (Quadro Kepler), while the Intel lists neither. The Quadro has a launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the Intel has no listed MSRP. The Quadro’s dimensions are 178 mm length and 111 mm height; the Intel lists none. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 3587. The NVIDIA part wins by 343 points, a delta of -8.7% from the Intel’s perspective. This aligns with the raw FP32 numbers: the Quadro delivers 480.0 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS, a 25% theoretical advantage. The Quadro’s win is modest, though, and the Intel’s other benchmark results put its average at 4075, which is higher than the Quadro’s 3930. The Intel’s Geekbench Metal score of 5099 is particularly strong, and its Vulkan score of 3540 nearly matches the Quadro’s OpenCL result. The data implies the Quadro’s OpenCL edge is real but not overwhelming, and it comes in a single compute API. The Intel’s multi-API breadth — Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan — allows it to compete across a wider range of test scenarios. The nearest rivals for the Intel include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at 4093 (-0.4% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M at 4033 (+1% delta), and the AMD FirePro M4150 at 4013 (+1.5% delta). The Quadro’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D at 3919 (+0.3% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (-0.6% delta), and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3956 (-0.7% delta). These rival relationships show both parts trading blows with adjacent hardware, with the Intel slightly above its nearest rivals and the Quadro slightly below its closest competitor.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 2000D wins in raw OpenCL compute, as evidenced by its 3930 score against the Intel’s 3587. It also wins on pixel fill rate, delivering 5.000 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s, and on FP32 throughput at 480.0 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS. Its dedicated 1024 MB of GDDR5 with 41.60 GB/s bandwidth gives it a memory subsystem advantage that the Intel’s system-shared memory cannot match. The Quadro’s 16 ROPs versus 3 ROPs makes it the better choice for rasterization-heavy tasks. For users running legacy OpenCL applications — particularly in professional or CAD environments where the Quadro’s 599 USD launch MSRP once positioned it — the data supports NVIDIA’s card. The Intel HD Graphics 630 wins on power efficiency with a 15 W TDP versus 62 W, making it the only viable option for ultra-low-power systems. It wins on modern API support, offering DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 where the Quadro has DirectX 12 (11_0) and no Vulkan. The Intel’s FP16 capability at 768.0 GFLOPS is a feature the Fermi-based Quadro lacks entirely. The Intel also shows higher average benchmark performance overall: 4075 versus 3930. Its Geekbench Metal score of 5099 suggests strength in Apple-centric workflows, and its Vulkan score of 3540 nearly matches the Quadro’s OpenCL result. The texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s edges out the Quadro’s 20.00 GTexel/s. For users who need Vulkan, FP16, or minimal power draw, the Intel HD Graphics 630 is the data-backed choice. For those locked into OpenCL with a need for dedicated memory and higher fill rates, the Quadro 2000D holds the edge. The two parts occupy the same performance percentile — 24th versus 23rd — so neither offers a transformative leap over the other. The selection ultimately depends on which specific strengths matter more: the Quadro’s compute and memory focus, or the Intel’s modern feature set and efficiency.