Intel HD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data is decisive. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins both available comparisons, and it does so by a wide margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 16,646 against Intel's 3,587, a 364.1% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the lead is even larger: 16,668 versus 3,540, a 370.8% gap. These are not close contests; the Quadro is roughly four and a half times faster in compute workloads measured through these APIs.

The overall average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Quadro M3000M averages 4,621 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs. The Intel HD Graphics 630 averages 4,075, sitting in the 24th percentile. The difference in average score is 546 points, which translates to roughly 13.4% ahead for the NVIDIA part. However, that average is pulled down by the Quadro's low scores in DirectX legacy tests. In Passmark DirectX 9, the Quadro scores 98, while in Passmark DirectX 10 it manages only 26. These numbers are far below the Intel part's compute scores, but Intel has no recorded DirectX scores to compare directly. The averages are computed from different test sets, so the head-to-head Geekbench results are the cleaner apples-to-apples comparison.

When looking at nearest rivals, the Quadro M3000M sits between the GeForce GTX 970M (average 4,628, just 0.1% higher) and the AMD Radeon R5 M320 (average 4,657, 0.8% higher). The Intel HD Graphics 630 is bracketed by the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (average 4,093, 0.4% higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (average 4,033, 1% lower). This positioning confirms that the Quadro operates in a higher performance tier, while the Intel integrated part competes with older entry-level discrete mobile GPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from entirely different design philosophies. The Quadro M3000M uses NVIDIA's GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The die contains 5,200 million transistors across 398 mm², giving a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses the Kaby Lake GT2 chip on Generation 9.5 architecture, built by Intel on a 14 nm++ process. No transistor count or die size is recorded for the Intel part, but the process node is significantly more advanced.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The Quadro has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Intel's part has just 192 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. This structural gap explains the benchmark results. The Quadro's pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.892 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 384.0 GFLOPS for Intel, a 4.9x difference. Intel does list FP16 capability at 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, but the Quadro has no recorded FP16 figure, so a direct comparison is not possible from the data.

Memory architecture is another major split. The Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses system shared memory, with type, bus width, and bandwidth all system dependent. The Quadro's dedicated memory subsystem is a clear advantage for sustained workloads. Clock behavior also differs: the Quadro runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost, while Intel runs at 350 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost. Intel's boost clock is higher but its shading unit count is drastically lower.

Power and integration are opposites. The Quadro is a 75 W MXM module with no power connectors, designed for removable mobile workstations. Intel is a 15 W IGP on a ring bus interface, integrated into the CPU package. Display outputs for the Quadro are portable device dependent, while Intel's are motherboard dependent. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4 for NVIDIA and 1.3 for Intel. The Quadro also has a Geekbench Vulkan score, while Intel's list includes a Geekbench Metal score of 5,099, which the Quadro does not have.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M3000M wins everywhere the data allows direct comparison. Its strengths are in dedicated graphics workloads: OpenCL compute, Vulkan rendering, and any task that demands sustained memory bandwidth. The 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer and 256-bit bus make it suited for professional 3D rendering, CAD, and GPU-accelerated compute in mobile workstations. The 1.892 TFLOPS FP32 throughput supports substantial parallel processing.

The Intel HD Graphics 630 wins in power efficiency and integration. At 15 W, it consumes one-fifth the power of the Quadro's 75 W. It requires no separate memory, no MXM slot, and no power connector. For everyday desktop tasks, web browsing, video playback, and light productivity, the integrated part is sufficient. Its Geekbench Metal score of 5,099 suggests reasonable performance in Apple's Metal API environment, which the Quadro does not record. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock at 1000 MHz versus 924 MHz, though this does not compensate for the massive shading unit deficit.

The data does not show any benchmark where Intel wins. The head-to-head table records 2 wins for NVIDIA and 0 for Intel. Intel's integrated design wins on system simplicity and power draw, but the recorded benchmarks show no performance category where it leads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 versus 3,587 for the Intel HD Graphics 630, a 364.1% advantage.

Q: What is the performance gap in Vulkan workloads?

A: The Quadro M3000M scores 16,668 in Geekbench Vulkan, while Intel scores 3,540. The delta is 370.8% in NVIDIA's favor.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics 630 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1). Both also support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while Intel supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Quadro M3000M has a TDP of 75 W. The Intel HD Graphics 630 has a TDP of 15 W.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units. The Intel HD Graphics 630 has 192 shading units.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark that compares both parts. Its compute scores are over 360% higher, its average benchmark score is 13.4% higher, and it has dedicated graphics memory with 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics 630 cannot match it in any measured performance category.

The Intel part wins only on power and integration. At 15 W, it uses 60 W less than the Quadro, and it requires no dedicated graphics slot or memory. For systems where battery life and thermal envelope are the priority, and where the workload is limited to basic 2D and light 3D tasks, the Intel integrated GPU is the sensible choice.

For professional mobile workstations running compute-heavy applications, the Quadro M3000M is the clear pick. The 4 GB GDDR5, 256-bit bus, and 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput provide the resources needed for serious graphics work. The 27th percentile ranking versus 24th for Intel confirms the Quadro sits higher in the overall GPU hierarchy.

The end-of-life status of both parts means these are legacy choices. The Quadro is from 2015-08-17, while Intel is from 2016-08-29. Neither is a current product, but the Quadro's performance advantage in the recorded data is unambiguous.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M3000M | Intel HD Graphics 630 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Generation 9.5 |

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

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | Not recorded |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | Not recorded |

| Base Clock | 823 MHz | 350 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 924 MHz | 1000 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective | System Shared |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 192 |

| TMUs | 64 | 24 |

| ROPs | 32 | 3 |

| Pixel Rate | 29.57 GPixel/s | 3.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 59.14 GTexel/s | 24.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1.892 TFLOPS | 384.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | Not recorded | 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 75 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2015-08-17 | 2016-08-29 |