GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a split picture between these two end-of-life graphics solutions. The Intel HD Graphics 630 claims the single biggest victory, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M takes the overall average and wins two of the three tested workloads.

In Geekbench Metal, the Intel HD Graphics 630 posts 5099 against the Quadro K2100M's 3524. That is a 30.9% lead for Intel, and it is the largest delta in any test. The margin is substantial enough that any application relying heavily on Metal acceleration will clearly favor the Intel part.

The Quadro responds decisively in the other two APIs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card scores 4587 versus Intel's 3587, a 27.9% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the NVIDIA card scores 4343 versus Intel's 3540, a 22.7% edge. These are not marginal wins; the Quadro is roughly a quarter faster in both compute-oriented workloads.

Averaging all three tests, the Quadro K2100M lands at 4151 against Intel's 4075. That is a 1.9% overall lead for NVIDIA, per the deltaPct in the rival data. The two are close in the aggregate, but the distribution of wins tells a clearer story: NVIDIA dominates OpenCL and Vulkan, while Intel dominates Metal by an even wider margin.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces where these parts sit. The Quadro's average of 4151 is within 1% of the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) and within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4093). Intel's average of 4075 is 1% ahead of the GeForce GT 755M (4033) and 1.5% ahead of the AMD FirePro M4150 (4013). Both parts sit in the bottom quarter of all GPUs, with the Quadro at the 25th percentile and Intel at the 24th.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different generations and foundries. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M uses the GK106S die, built on Kepler architecture at TSMC's 28 nm process. Intel's HD Graphics 630 uses the Kaby Lake GT2 die, built on Generation 9.5 architecture at Intel's 14 nm++ process. The process advantage is significant: Intel's node is far denser and more power-efficient on paper, though the Quadro compensates with a much larger, more complex chip.

The transistor counts tell the scale difference. The Quadro packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. Intel does not disclose transistor count or die size for the GT2 die, so direct density comparison is impossible. What is clear is that the Quadro's dedicated silicon is roughly an order of magnitude larger in transistor budget, which explains its higher compute throughput.

Clock behavior differs sharply. The Quadro runs at a flat 667 MHz for both base and boost, with no dynamic range. Intel's HD Graphics 630 starts at 350 MHz base and boosts to 1000 MHz, a nearly 3x increase under load. The Quadro's memory clock is 752 MHz with 3 Gbps effective data rate, while Intel's memory is system shared with no dedicated clock.

The memory systems are fundamentally different. The Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth. Intel's HD Graphics 630 uses system shared memory for everything: size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all system dependent. This means the Quadro has guaranteed dedicated bandwidth, while Intel's performance varies with the host system's RAM configuration.

Shading resources favor NVIDIA heavily. The Quadro has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Intel has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. That is a 3x advantage in shaders, 2x in TMUs, and over 5x in ROPs for NVIDIA. Pixel rate reflects this: the Quadro hits 8.004 GPixel/s versus Intel's 3.000 GPixel/s. Texture rate is closer but still NVIDIA-favored at 32.02 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute is exactly double in NVIDIA's favor: 768.4 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS. Intel does have a stated FP16 rate of 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1), which the Quadro does not list. API support differs: Intel supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both list OpenGL 4.6.

Power and form factor are polar opposites. The Quadro is a 55 W MXM module with no power connectors, designed for laptops and mobile workstations. Intel is a 15 W IGP using a ring bus interface, integrated into the CPU package with motherboard-dependent display outputs.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple split decision. Users who run OpenCL or Vulkan workloads should pick the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M. It is 27.9% ahead in OpenCL and 22.7% ahead in Vulkan, and its 576 shaders with dedicated GDDR5 memory provide a structural advantage in compute-heavy tasks.

Users who run Metal workloads should pick the Intel HD Graphics 630. Its 5099 Metal score beats the Quadro by 30.9%, and that is the largest margin in any benchmark in this comparison.

For general average performance, the Quadro edges ahead by 1.9% and sits at a slightly higher percentile (25th versus 24th). But the gap is small enough that the specific API you use matters more than the aggregate score.

The power envelope is a differentiator. Intel's 15 W IGP uses a fraction of the Quadro's 55 W budget, and it requires no separate memory or cooling solution. If power draw or system integration is the priority, Intel wins by a wide margin. If raw compute throughput is the priority, NVIDIA wins.

Neither part is competitive with modern hardware, both sit at the 24th and 25th percentiles of all GPUs. But between these two, the choice is clear: NVIDIA for OpenCL/Vulkan and raw shader throughput, Intel for Metal and power efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the overall benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has a 1.9% higher average benchmark score (4151 versus 4075) and wins 2 of the 3 head-to-head tests, while Intel wins 1 test.

Q: How much faster is the Intel HD Graphics 630 in Metal?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 scores 5099 in Geekbench Metal versus the Quadro's 3524, a 30.9% advantage for Intel.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M in OpenCL and Vulkan?

A: The Quadro scores 4587 in OpenCL versus Intel's 3587 (27.9% faster), and 4343 in Vulkan versus Intel's 3540 (22.7% faster).

Q: What are the TDP differences between these two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is rated at 55 W and uses an MXM module slot. The Intel HD Graphics 630 is rated at 15 W and is an IGP with a ring bus interface.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: The Quadro has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 48.13 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Intel has 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 3 ROPs.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins in:

• OpenCL compute workloads: 27.9% ahead of Intel.
• Vulkan workloads: 22.7% ahead of Intel.
• Average benchmark score: 1.9% ahead overall.
• Dedicated memory bandwidth: 48.13 GB/s versus system dependent.
• Pixel fill rate: 8.004 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s.
• Texture fill rate: 32.02 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s.
• FP32 compute: 768.4 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS.
• Shader and ROP resources: 576 versus 192 shading units, 16 versus 3 ROPs.
• Higher percentile ranking: 25th versus 24th.

Intel HD Graphics 630 wins in:

• Metal workloads: 30.9% ahead of NVIDIA.
• Power efficiency: 15 W versus 55 W.
• Process node: 14 nm++ versus 28 nm.
• Boost clock headroom: 1000 MHz boost versus flat 667 MHz.
• API support: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0), Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.175.
• FP16 compute: 768.0 GFLOPS listed, while the Quadro lists none.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K2100M | Intel HD Graphics 630 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GK106S | Kaby Lake GT2 |

| Architecture | Kepler | Generation 9.5 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm++ |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | Not disclosed |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | Not disclosed |

| Base Clock | 667 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 667 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.13 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 576 | 192 |

| TMUs | 48 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 3 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.004 GPixel/s | 3.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.02 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 768.4 GFLOPS | 384.0 GFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 55 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not applicable |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

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

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.3 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2016-08-29 |