Intel HD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single directly comparable benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 3587, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434. The Intel part wins by 153 points, a delta of 4.5%. This is a modest but clear victory for the Intel integrated solution.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Intel HD Graphics 630 has three recorded scores: 5099 in Geekbench Metal, 3587 in Geekbench OpenCL, and 3540 in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 4075. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has only one recorded benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL result of 3434, which also serves as its average score. The Intel part’s average is therefore 641 points higher, a gap of roughly 18.7% relative to the Quadro’s average.

The nearest rival data places the Intel HD Graphics 630 in a competitive neighborhood. Its average score of 4075 sits just 0.4% below the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, which averages 4093. It is 1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033) and 1.5% above the AMD FirePro M4150 (4013). The only rival it trails in this group is the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, which posts an average of 4151, putting the Intel part 1.8% behind. This clustering shows the HD Graphics 630 performing at a level comparable to mid-range discrete mobile GPUs from a previous generation, a notable result for an integrated processor graphics solution.

For the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M, the nearest rivals tell a similar story of tight competition. Its average of 3434 is 0.1% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431), 1.3% above the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389), and 3.1% above the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332). The only rival that beats it is the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX, which scores 3528, putting the Quadro 2.7% behind. The Quadro 2000M sits in the 21st percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 sits in the 24th percentile. Both are firmly in the lower tier of the overall GPU landscape, but the Intel part holds a measurable edge in both percentile ranking and average score.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel HD Graphics 630 is the faster GPU in this comparison. It wins the only head-to-head test available, and its average benchmark score is substantially higher. The Intel part’s 4075 average versus the Quadro’s 3434 average represents an 18.7% advantage, and its percentile ranking of 24 versus 21 confirms that it occupies a slightly higher position in the overall performance distribution.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 also offers a wider range of supported APIs. It lists DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 support, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and no Vulkan support at all. Both support OpenGL 4.6. For modern workloads that leverage Vulkan or the higher DirectX feature level, the Intel part is clearly the more capable option.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M does not win any benchmark category in this comparison. Its sole recorded score is lower than the corresponding Intel score, and its average is lower. The data shows no scenario in which the Quadro 2000M outperforms the HD Graphics 630. This is not a close contest; it is a decisive win for Intel.

Where Each One Wins

Intel HD Graphics 630 wins on raw compute performance in the measured tests. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 3587 beats the Quadro’s 3434 by 4.5%. Its average score of 4075 is higher than any single score the Quadro produces. The Intel part also has the advantage of three separate benchmark results, demonstrating consistent performance across Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan APIs. For users running OpenCL workloads, which are common in general-purpose GPU computing, the Intel solution delivers more performance. For users who need Vulkan support, the Intel part is the only viable option between the two, as the Quadro has no Vulkan entry in the database.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has no benchmark victories in this comparison. However, its specification sheet reveals areas where it is structurally superior, even if the measured performance does not follow. It has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory with a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Intel part relies on system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The Quadro also has 32 texture mapping units (TMUs) versus 24 on the Intel part, and 16 raster output units (ROPs) versus just 3 on the Intel part. Its pixel rate of 4.400 GPixel/s exceeds the Intel part’s 3.000 GPixel/s, and its FP32 throughput of 422.4 GFLOPS is higher than the Intel part’s 384.0 GFLOPS. These raw architectural advantages do not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data, but they suggest the Quadro may handle certain rasterization-heavy tasks more efficiently, despite losing the overall compute race.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 3587, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434. The Intel part wins by 4.5%.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M have any benchmark wins over the Intel HD Graphics 630?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the Quadro 2000M in head-to-head comparisons.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 has an average score of 4075 across three tests. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has an average score of 3434 from its single recorded test.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same APIs?

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

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 is 1% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M and 1.5% faster than the AMD FirePro M4150, but 1.8% slower than the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M is 1.3% faster than the Intel HD Graphics P4600 and 3.1% faster than the Intel HD Graphics 530, but 2.7% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX.

Q: Which GPU has the higher percentile ranking?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 ranks in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M ranks in the 21st percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturers and represent different generations of graphics architecture. The Intel HD Graphics 630 is built on the Kaby Lake GT2 chip using Intel’s Generation 9.5 architecture. It uses a 14 nm++ process node fabricated by Intel itself. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M, by contrast, uses the GF106 chip based on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm++ versus 40 nm, which gives the Intel part a considerable manufacturing advantage in density and efficiency.

The Intel part’s transistor count is not listed in the database, but the Quadro 2000M has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million per mm². The Intel HD Graphics 630 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) that uses a Ring Bus interface and has no discrete memory of its own, relying instead on system shared memory. The Quadro 2000M is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and no power connectors required.

Shading unit counts are identical at 192 for both GPUs. The Intel part has 24 TMUs and 3 ROPs, while the Quadro has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This gives the Quadro a higher pixel fill rate at 4.400 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s, but the Intel part has a higher texture fill rate at 24.00 GTexel/s versus 17.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is close: the Quadro produces 422.4 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS for the Intel part. The Intel part also lists FP16 performance at 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the Quadro has no FP16 entry.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The Intel HD Graphics 630 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz. The Quadro 2000M lists no base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective data rate. The Intel part’s memory configuration is entirely system dependent, while the Quadro has a fixed 2 GB DDR3 setup with a 128-bit bus and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part’s power draw is much lower at 15 W versus 55 W for the Quadro, reflecting the integrated versus discrete design philosophy.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs differ across nearly every hardware field. The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses the Kaby Lake GT2 chip, while the Quadro 2000M uses the GF106 chip. The Intel part is built on 14 nm++ at Intel’s foundry, while the Quadro uses 40 nm at TSMC. The Quadro lists 1,170 million transistors and a 238 mm² die size, while the Intel part has no listed transistor count or die size.

Memory is a major differentiator. The Intel part uses system shared memory with a system shared size, type, and bus width, and system-dependent bandwidth. The Quadro has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part’s base clock is 350 MHz with a 1000 MHz boost, while the Quadro lists no base or boost clocks. The Quadro’s memory clock is 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, while the Intel part lists its memory as system shared.

TMU and ROP counts differ: 24 TMUs and 3 ROPs for Intel, 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs for NVIDIA. Pixel rates are 3.000 GPixel/s for Intel and 4.400 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rates are 24.00 GTexel/s for Intel and 17.60 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 performance is 384.0 GFLOPS for Intel and 422.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA. The Intel part has FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS, while the Quadro has no FP16 listing.

Power specifications show a 15 W TDP for the Intel part versus 55 W for the Quadro. The Intel part is an IGP with motherboard-dependent display outputs, while the Quadro is an MXM Module with portable-device-dependent outputs. The Quadro has no power connectors, and the Intel part has none listed. API support differs: DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 for Intel, DirectX 12 (11_0) and no Vulkan for NVIDIA. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Release dates are also far apart: the Intel part was released in August 2016, while the Quadro was released in January 2011. Both are end-of-life products.