Intel HD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

Intel HD Graphics 630 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000D are both end-of-life products, but they represent two very different philosophies: a power-sipping integrated GPU inside a laptop CPU versus a dedicated workstation card from the professional Quadro line. The benchmark data, drawn exclusively from Geekbench compute tests, shows a narrow but decisive victory for the older dedicated card, while the integrated solution counters with superior API support and a fraction of the power draw. This comparison is less about raw speed and more about context: one is a free inclusion in a processor, the other was a paid upgrade for professional workstations.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if modest, winner: the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D. In the only shared benchmark test, Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 3919 against the Intel HD Graphics 630's 3587, a difference of 8.5 percent. This is not a landslide, but it is consistent with the broader positioning. The Quadro K2000D sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel part is at the 24th, meaning they occupy nearly the same performance tier globally. However, the Quadro's average benchmark score of 3919 is higher than the Intel's 4075? No, that is incorrect—the Intel's average is actually 4075, which is higher. This is a crucial nuance: the Intel's average benchmark score (4075) is 4.0 percent higher than the Quadro's (3919), driven by its additional Geekbench Metal (5099) and Vulkan (3540) results, which the Quadro cannot run.

So, who should pick which? Pick the Quadro K2000D if your workload is strictly OpenCL-based and you need a dedicated, single-slot card with its own 2 GB of GDDR5 memory and 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The data shows it wins the OpenCL head-to-head decisively. Pick the Intel HD Graphics 630 if you value API versatility (it supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro is limited to DirectX 11_0 and Vulkan 1.2.175), lower power consumption (15 W vs 51 W), and do not mind sharing system memory. The Intel part also has a higher average benchmark score overall, suggesting it is more balanced across different compute APIs.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D wins in raw OpenCL compute throughput. Its score of 3919 in Geekbench OpenCL is 8.5 percent ahead of the Intel's 3587. This is the only direct benchmark comparison available, and the Quadro takes it. This advantage likely stems from its dedicated memory subsystem: 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus provides 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, a figure that is not dependent on the host system's RAM. The Quadro also has more raw hardware: 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, compared to the Intel's 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 3 ROPs. Its pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s are both roughly double that of the Intel part (3.000 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s).

The Intel HD Graphics 630 wins on API compatibility and efficiency. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro is capped at DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. This means the Intel part can run modern compute and graphics workloads that the Quadro simply cannot. It also wins decisively on power: 15 W versus 51 W, a 70 percent reduction. This makes it viable in thin-and-light laptops with no dedicated cooling. Furthermore, its Geekbench Metal score of 5099 is its strongest result, and its Vulkan score of 3540 is only 0.1 percent behind its OpenCL score, showing it is not a one-trick pony. The Intel part's average benchmark score of 4075 is higher than the Quadro's 3919, indicating that when you average across all supported APIs, the Intel solution is actually the faster overall part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two is vast. The Intel HD Graphics 630 is built on the Kaby Lake GT2 chip using Intel's 14 nm++ process node, fabricated by Intel itself. It is part of the Generation 9.5 architecture. It is an integrated GPU (IGP) that interfaces with the rest of the system via a Ring Bus and has no dedicated video memory; it uses System Shared memory of any size, with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." Its clock speeds are 350 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost, and it packs 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 3 ROPs. It lacks dedicated RT or tensor cores. Its FP32 performance is 384.0 GFLOPS, with FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio). It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is a discrete card based on the GK107 chip, built on TSMC's 28 nm process node. It uses the older Kepler architecture. It has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 10.8M / mm². It has dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a fixed bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s and memory running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). It uses 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s and texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s, with FP32 at 732.7 GFLOPS. It has no FP16 capability listed. It draws 51 W and requires no power connectors, but suggests a 250 W PSU. It connects via PCIe 2.0 x16 and is a single-slot card measuring 202 mm (8 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height. Its display outputs are 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. It supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175.

The core difference is the memory architecture. The Quadro's dedicated 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is a fixed, predictable resource. The Intel's "System Dependent" bandwidth means performance scales with the speed of the laptop's RAM, which is a variable that the benchmark data cannot account for.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 has a higher average benchmark score of 4075, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D's 3919. This is driven by the Intel part's additional Metal and Vulkan results.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro K2000D in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro K2000D scores 3919 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 8.5 percent higher than the Intel HD Graphics 630's 3587.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics 630 support more modern APIs?

A: Yes. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro K2000D is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W. The Intel part uses 70 percent less power.

Q: Does the Quadro K2000D have its own dedicated memory?

A: Yes, it has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses System Shared memory.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has a pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s, which is more than double the Intel HD Graphics 630's 3.000 GPixel/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a win for the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D. The Quadro scores 3919 against the Intel HD Graphics 630's 3587. This represents a -8.5 percent delta from the Intel's perspective, meaning the Quadro is 8.5 percent faster. This is a meaningful margin in a compute workload.

However, the story changes when looking at the full benchmark suite for the Intel part. The Intel HD Graphics 630 has three results: Geekbench Metal at 5099, Geekbench OpenCL at 3587, and Geekbench Vulkan at 3540. The Quadro only has one result: Geekbench OpenCL at 3919. This means the Intel part's average score of 4075 is boosted by its Metal performance, which is 42 percent higher than its own OpenCL score. In contrast, the Quadro's average is pulled down by its lack of additional API support.

Therefore, the biggest win for the Quadro is its OpenCL superiority, a 332-point lead. The biggest win for the Intel part is its Metal result of 5099, which exceeds the Quadro's OpenCL score by 1180 points (roughly 30 percent). This indicates that for Apple-centric Metal workloads, the Intel HD Graphics 630 is the far better choice, despite being an integrated part. In Vulkan, the Intel scores 3540, which is still 379 points behind the Quadro's OpenCL, but it shows the Intel part is not entirely outclassed in modern compute APIs. The data suggests a nuanced picture: the Quadro K2000D is the dedicated OpenCL workhorse, but the Intel HD Graphics 630 is the more versatile part with a higher overall performance ceiling in specific APIs.