Intel HD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

Intel HD Graphics 630 and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M represent two very different eras of mobile graphics, one an integrated solution from Intel's 2016 Kaby Lake generation and the other a dedicated professional mobile GPU from NVIDIA's 2011 Fermi lineup. The benchmark data reveals a surprisingly close contest in raw compute, despite nearly a decade of architectural separation. The Quadro 3000M edges out the Intel part in the single shared benchmark, but the Intel solution offers a broader feature set in terms of modern API support, making the choice heavily dependent on workload and platform constraints.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits the two GPUs along clear lines of specialization. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 3718 against Intel's 3587. This represents a 3.5% delta in favor of the NVIDIA part, making it the stronger choice for raw compute throughput in legacy applications that leverage OpenCL. Its dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, provides a significant advantage for workloads that require substantial local memory capacity and high bandwidth, such as CAD rendering or scientific simulations that fit within its 2 GB frame buffer. The Quadro's 240 shading units and 32 ROPs also give it a higher pixel rate of 4.500 GPixel/s, which can translate to better performance in fill-rate-bound scenarios.

The Intel HD Graphics 630, conversely, wins on architectural modernity and feature support. While it loses the compute benchmark, it supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the Quadro 3000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) with no Vulkan support. This makes Intel's solution the better option for modern gaming or applications that leverage these newer APIs. Additionally, the Intel part's 14 nm++ process node, compared to NVIDIA's 40 nm, makes it vastly more power-efficient, consuming only 15 W versus 75 W. This positions it as the clear winner for battery life and thermally constrained ultraportable systems, even if its performance ceiling is lower. Intel also offers a higher texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s compared to the Quadro's 18.00 GTexel/s, suggesting an edge in texture-heavy workloads despite the lower raw FLOPS.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is vast. Intel's HD Graphics 630 is based on the Kaby Lake GT2 chip, built on Generation 9.5 architecture using a 14 nm++ process at Intel's own foundry. It integrates 192 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and just 3 ROPs, which is a configuration heavily optimized for low power draw. Its memory subsystem is entirely "System Shared," meaning it uses the host system's RAM with bandwidth that is "System Dependent," a fundamental design difference that limits its performance in memory-intensive tasks but eliminates the need for dedicated VRAM. The chip communicates via a Ring Bus interface, and its output is "Motherboard Dependent," reflecting its integrated nature.

In contrast, NVIDIA's Quadro 3000M is a discrete GPU based on the GF104 chip, using the older Fermi architecture. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process and is a significantly larger and more complex die, with 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M / mm². It features 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, a much more balanced configuration for traditional rendering. Crucially, it has a dedicated memory interface: 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing a fixed 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a massive advantage over Intel's shared memory approach. The Quadro uses an MXM Module form factor with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, and its outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," indicating it's meant for professional mobile workstations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison in the Geekbench OpenCL test shows the Quadro 3000M winning with a score of 3718 against Intel's 3587. The deltaPct is -3.5%, which from the perspective of the Intel part, indicates it trails by roughly 3.5%. This narrow margin is remarkable given the age and architectural differences. The Intel part's massive process advantage and newer architecture appear to nearly close the gap with the older, more powerful discrete GPU.

A deeper look at other benchmarks from the fact pack provides further context. Intel's HD Graphics 630 achieves a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3540, a test the Quadro cannot even run due to its lack of Vulkan support. In Geekbench Metal, the Intel part scores 5099, though this is an Apple-specific API and not applicable to the NVIDIA GPU, which lacks Metal support in this context. The averages tell a similar story: Intel's average benchmark score is 4075 across three tests, while NVIDIA's average is 3718 from a single test. This suggests that while the Quadro has a slight edge in raw OpenCL compute, the Intel part is more versatile across different modern compute APIs. The Intel part also holds a 24th percentile rank versus all GPUs, slightly ahead of the Quadro's 22nd percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute performance in the shared benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718 in Geekbench OpenCL, outperforming the Intel HD Graphics 630's score of 3587, a 3.5% difference.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics 630 support modern graphics APIs that the Quadro does not?

A: Yes, the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro 3000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support.

Q: What are the power consumption differences between these two GPUs?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 has a TDP of 15 W, which is significantly lower than the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's 75 W, making the Intel solution far more power-efficient.

Q: How does the memory architecture differ between the two?

A: The Quadro 3000M has a dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth on a 256-bit bus, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 uses shared system memory with bandwidth that is system dependent.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has a pixel rate of 4.500 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Intel HD Graphics 630's 3.000 GPixel/s.

Q: Which GPU is positioned better in the overall performance percentile ranking?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, slightly higher than the Quadro 3000M, which is at the 22nd percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel HD Graphics 630 | NVIDIA Quadro 3000M |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Generation 9.5 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 14 nm++ | 40 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 332 mm² |

| Base Clock | 350 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1000 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 240 |

| TMUs | 24 | 40 |

| ROPs | 3 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 3.000 GPixel/s | 4.500 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.00 GTexel/s | 18.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 384.0 GFLOPS | 432.0 GFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 15 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | MXM-B (3.0) |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2016-08-29 | 2011-02-21 |

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different user profiles. For users requiring a drop-in, low-power graphics solution for a modern system, the Intel HD Graphics 630 is the logical choice. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life is paramount. The support for Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1) ensures compatibility with contemporary software, and its higher average benchmark score of 4075 across multiple APIs suggests better all-around modern compute capability, despite losing the specific OpenCL test. Its 24th percentile ranking also indicates it performs better relative to the entire GPU landscape than its rival.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is the pick for legacy professional applications where raw memory bandwidth and dedicated VRAM are non-negotiable. Its 80.00 GB/s bandwidth and 2 GB GDDR5 frame buffer are crucial for older CAD or DCC workloads that are not optimized for shared memory architectures. The 3.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL shows it still holds a compute advantage in that specific, legacy API. However, its 75 W TDP, lack of Vulkan support, and older 40 nm process node make it a poor choice for any modern, power-sensitive application. Its 22nd percentile ranking confirms it is a slower part overall in the current benchmark landscape. Ultimately, the choice hinges on whether the user prioritizes modern feature support and efficiency (Intel) or legacy compute and dedicated memory bandwidth (NVIDIA).