Intel HD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and Intel HD Graphics 630 are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they target entirely different segments: one is a dedicated mobile workstation GPU, the other an integrated processor graphics unit. Benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the Quadro K3000M leading in raw compute but the Intel part offering a more modern feature set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4,241 points, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 manages 3,587 points. This translates to an 18.2% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial margin that underscores the fundamental difference between a dedicated discrete GPU and an integrated solution. The Quadro’s lead is not marginal; it represents a full tier of performance separation in compute workloads.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this gap. The Quadro K3000M sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4,241. Its closest competitors are tightly clustered: the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4,268 (0.6% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4,282 (1% higher), and the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4,295 (1.3% higher). Notably, the Quadro K3000M actually beats the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, which scores 4,193, giving the older mobile part a 1.2% edge. This suggests that despite its age and lower percentile ranking, the Quadro K3000M remains competitive with much newer hardware in OpenCL compute.

The Intel HD Graphics 630, meanwhile, sits at the 24th percentile with an average benchmark score of 4,075. Its rival cluster includes the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at 4,093 (0.4% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M at 4,033 (1% higher), and the AMD FirePro M4150 at 4,013 (1.5% higher). The Intel part also trails the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, which scores 4,151, a 1.8% deficit. While the Intel part’s average score is lower than the Quadro K3000M’s, the delta between their closest rivals is smaller than the 18.2% head-to-head gap, indicating that the direct comparison is the most meaningful measure of their relative performance.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 does have additional benchmark data that the Quadro lacks: a Geekbench Metal score of 5,099 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3,540. These results cannot be compared directly to the Quadro, as no equivalent data exists for the NVIDIA part, but they do show that the Intel integrated solution is capable across multiple API frameworks, with Metal performance notably higher than its OpenCL result.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK104 chip, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a large, complex die: the chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per mm². The Intel HD Graphics 630, by contrast, uses the Generation 9.5 architecture with the Kaby Lake GT2 chip, built on Intel’s 14 nm++ process. No transistor count or die size data is available for the Intel part, but the architectural approach is fundamentally different: the Intel GPU is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) sharing a ring bus interface with the CPU, while the Quadro is a standalone MXM module.

Core configuration differs dramatically. The Quadro K3000M packs 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The Intel HD Graphics 630 has only 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and just 3 ROPs. This 3:1 ratio in shading units and 2:1 ratio in TMUs explains the Quadro’s compute advantage. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the Quadro runs at a fixed 654 MHz for both base and boost, while the Intel part has a 350 MHz base clock that boosts to 1,000 MHz. Despite the Intel’s higher boost clock, its smaller core configuration cannot overcome the Quadro’s raw hardware advantage.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Quadro K3000M uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses system shared memory, with the type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." This means the Intel part’s memory performance varies entirely based on the host system’s RAM configuration, while the Quadro has fixed, dedicated bandwidth. The Quadro’s pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s and texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s both exceed the Intel’s 3.000 GPixel/s and 24.00 GTexel/s, respectively. Compute throughput shows the same pattern: the Quadro delivers 753.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Intel part manages 384.0 GFLOPS of FP32 and 768.0 GFLOPS of FP16 (at a 2:1 ratio).

API support favors the Intel part in some respects. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel HD Graphics 630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. This means the Intel part has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, which could matter for compatibility with newer software titles. Power consumption is starkly different: the Quadro K3000M has a 75 W TDP and requires an MXM module slot, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP with no power connectors. The Quadro is listed as having no power connectors, while the Intel part has no connector data at all, as it draws power through the motherboard.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins in raw compute performance. Its 18.2% lead in the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark is the clearest evidence, but the underlying specifications reinforce this: triple the shading units, double the TMUs, over 10 times the ROPs, and nearly double the FP32 throughput. For any workload that stresses parallel compute — rendering, simulation, or data processing — the Quadro K3000M is the stronger choice. Its dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth also ensures consistent memory performance that system-shared memory cannot guarantee. The Quadro’s 25th percentile ranking, while low in absolute terms, places it in a competitive cluster where it edges out the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, a much newer discrete GPU.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 wins in efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is one-fifth of the Quadro’s 75 W TDP, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal headroom are critical. As an IGP, it requires no additional hardware, no MXM slot, and no dedicated memory, simplifying system design and reducing cost. The Intel part also offers superior API support: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0), and Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.175. The Metal benchmark score of 5,099 suggests that in Apple-centric or Metal-optimized workloads, the Intel part can outperform its OpenCL numbers might suggest. For users running modern games or applications that leverage newer DirectX or Vulkan features, the Intel part may offer better compatibility even if raw throughput is lower.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4,241, which is 18.2% higher than the Intel HD Graphics 630’s score of 3,587.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of power consumption?

A: The Quadro K3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 has a TDP of 15 W, making the Intel part five times more power-efficient on paper.

Q: What memory configurations do these GPUs use?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses system shared memory, with bandwidth dependent on the host system.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Intel HD Graphics 630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: Are there any benchmark results unique to one GPU?

A: Yes, the Intel HD Graphics 630 has Geekbench Metal and Vulkan scores of 5,099 and 3,540 respectively, while the Quadro K3000M has no data for those tests.

Q: How do these GPUs rank against all other GPUs?

A: The Quadro K3000M is at the 25th percentile, while the Intel HD Graphics 630 is at the 24th percentile, placing both in the lower quarter of all GPUs.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on use case. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the performance pick. Its 18.2% OpenCL lead, 576 shading units, 32 ROPs, and dedicated 89.60 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the superior choice for compute-heavy tasks. Its 75 W TDP and MXM module requirement mean it belongs in a mobile workstation chassis, not a thin laptop. The Quadro’s 25th percentile ranking, while low, is competitive with its nearest rivals, and its ability to beat the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti in OpenCL suggests it retains relevance for specific workloads.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 is the efficiency and compatibility pick. Its 15 W TDP, IGP form factor, and system-shared memory make it ideal for everyday laptops where battery life matters more than raw compute. The newer API support — DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 — gives it an edge for modern software compatibility. Its 24th percentile ranking is nearly identical to the Quadro, but its Metal score of 5,099 indicates strong performance in that specific API. Users who need a basic GPU for general computing, video playback, or light gaming on integrated graphics will find the Intel part sufficient, provided they accept its lower compute throughput.

There is no universal winner. The Quadro K3000M wins on raw performance and dedicated memory resources. The Intel HD Graphics 630 wins on power efficiency, API modernity, and system integration. Choose the Quadro for compute-oriented mobile workstations. Choose the Intel part for ultraportable systems where 15 W TDP and integrated simplicity are paramount.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K3000M | Intel HD Graphics 630 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | Generation 9.5 |

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

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Chip | GK104 | Kaby Lake GT2 |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | N/A |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | N/A |

| Base Clock | 654 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 654 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.60 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 576 | 192 |

| TMUs | 48 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 3 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.848 GPixel/s | 3.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 31.39 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 753.4 GFLOPS | 384.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | N/A | 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

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

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2012-05-31 | 2016-08-29 |