Intel HD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data shows two end-of-life GPUs that land in the same overall percentile (24th) but achieve it through different strengths. The Intel HD Graphics 630 is an integrated part of a Kaby Lake processor, built for mobility and low power, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is a dedicated workstation card from the Kepler era. Based strictly on benchmark results, the Quadro K2000 takes the head-to-head with 2 wins out of 3, but the Intel part wins the single most lopsided contest. The Intel HD Graphics 630 should be chosen by users who need a functional GPU for everyday computing, light media, and any workload that benefits from Metal API acceleration—its 5099 Geekbench Metal score is a standout. The Quadro K2000 is the pick for users running OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, as it leads by 11.9% and 15.5% respectively in those tests. If you are building a system where the CPU already includes the Intel GPU, the 630 costs nothing extra and consumes only 15 W, making it a sensible default. If you need a dedicated card with 2 GB of GDDR5 and 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth for professional applications, the Quadro K2000 is the stronger choice despite its age.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 has an average benchmark score of 4075, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 3964. The Intel part leads by roughly 2.8% on average, even though it loses the head-to-head contest 1-2.

Q: In which benchmark does the Intel HD Graphics 630 beat the Quadro K2000 by the largest margin?

A: The Intel part wins Geekbench Metal with a score of 5099 versus 3630, a delta of 40.5%. This is its only head-to-head win, and it is a decisive one.

Q: What are the Quadro K2000's memory specifications?

A: The Quadro K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. Its memory clock is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4071 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the Intel HD Graphics 630's 3587 by 11.9%. This is one of the Quadro's two wins in the head-to-head.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12, but at different feature levels. The Intel HD Graphics 630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 has a TDP of 15 W, while the Quadro K2000 has a TDP of 51 W. The Quadro also suggests a 250 W power supply, whereas the Intel part is an IGP with no such requirement.

Architecture Differences

The Intel HD Graphics 630 is built on the Generation 9.5 architecture using the Kaby Lake GT2 chip, manufactured on Intel's 14 nm++ process. The Quadro K2000 uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The Intel part integrates 192 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and only 3 ROPs, reflecting its role as a lightweight integrated solution. The Quadro K2000 has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs—double the shaders and significantly more render output capability.

The process node difference is substantial: Intel's 14 nm++ versus TSMC's 28 nm. The Quadro K2000 has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The Intel part's transistor count and die size are not listed, but its lower TDP of 15 W versus 51 W suggests a much more power-efficient design. The Intel GPU's FP32 throughput is 384.0 GFLOPS, while the Quadro K2000 reaches 732.7 GFLOPS. The Intel part supports FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the Kepler card lacks entirely.

API support differs as well. The Intel HD Graphics 630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel part's Vulkan version is newer, which may explain its competitive showing in that API despite lower raw compute.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The Intel HD Graphics 630 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz, while the Quadro K2000 lists no base or boost clock figures. Memory configurations are entirely different: the Intel part uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the Quadro K2000 has dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth on a 128-bit bus.

Shading units: 192 on Intel versus 384 on NVIDIA. TMUs: 24 versus 32. ROPs: 3 versus 16. Pixel rate: 3.000 GPixel/s versus 7.632 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 24.00 GTexel/s versus 30.53 GTexel/s. FP32: 384.0 GFLOPS versus 732.7 GFLOPS. The Quadro doubles or nearly doubles most of these figures.

The Quadro K2000 is a single-slot card measuring 202 mm (8 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU. The Intel part is an IGP with a ring bus interface and motherboard-dependent display outputs. The Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. TDP: 15 W versus 51 W. Release dates: the Intel part launched 2016-08-29, the Quadro 2013-02-28. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Fermi and successor is Quadro Maxwell; the Intel part lists neither. The Quadro K2000 had a launch MSRP of 599 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a clear split by API. In Geekbench Metal, the Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 5099 against the Quadro K2000's 3630, a 40.5% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison, and it flips the expected hierarchy—the integrated Intel part beats a dedicated workstation card by a wide margin in this specific test.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K2000 takes the lead with 4071 versus 3587, a delta of 11.9% in its favor. This aligns with its higher FP32 throughput (732.7 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS), though the margin is smaller than the raw compute difference might suggest.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro K2000 extends its lead further: 4191 versus 3540, a 15.5% advantage. This is the Quadro's best relative performance. The Intel part's Vulkan 1.3 support does not overcome the Kepler card's hardware advantages.

The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story: Intel's 4075 average beats the Quadro's 3964, a difference of 111 points. The Intel part's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at 4093 (delta -0.4%), while the Quadro's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3977 (delta -0.3%). Both GPUs sit at the 24th percentile against all GPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier overall despite their divergent strengths.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel HD Graphics 630 wins in any scenario that relies on Metal API performance. Its 40.5% lead in Geekbench Metal is the single largest margin in this comparison, making it the obvious choice for macOS-oriented workloads or applications that leverage Metal. Its 15 W TDP also makes it the clear winner for power-sensitive builds—it draws 36 W less than the Quadro K2000 and requires no power supply headroom beyond what the CPU already demands. The Intel part's average benchmark score of 4075 is also higher, so for general compute tasks that use a mix of APIs, it holds a slight edge.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins in OpenCL and Vulkan, taking 2 of the 3 head-to-head benchmarks. Its 732.7 GFLOPS FP32 throughput and 64.00 GB/s of dedicated GDDR5 bandwidth give it a real advantage in compute-heavy tasks. The 2 GB of VRAM is a tangible benefit for workloads that need more than system-shared memory. The Quadro also offers a single-slot form factor with dedicated display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), making it a practical drop-in card for professional workstations. Its 16 ROPs and 7.632 GPixel/s pixel rate mean it handles rasterization-heavy tasks far better than the Intel part's 3 ROPs and 3.000 GPixel/s.

For a user deciding between these two: if your software stack is Metal-centric or you need minimal power draw, the Intel HD Graphics 630 is the data-backed choice. If your applications use OpenCL or Vulkan, or you need dedicated VRAM and a physical card with standard outputs, the Quadro K2000 is the better performer. The benchmarks do not support a universal winner—they support a use-case-dependent pick.