Intel HD Graphics 630 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro P400 vs Intel HD Graphics 630

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 and the Intel HD Graphics 630 occupy different corners of the GPU market. The P400 is a discrete, professional workstation card built on the Pascal architecture. The HD 630 is an integrated graphics processor embedded within Intel's Kaby Lake CPUs. Benchmark data from the database shows a clear performance gap between the two, but the gap varies sharply depending on the workload. The recorded measurements give the Quadro P400 two decisive wins in direct comparisons, though the integrated part's system memory and flexible output configuration make it a relevant option in specific scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct head-to-head benchmark runs for these parts. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 scored 4249 points. The Intel HD 630 scored 3587 points in the same test. That is a difference of 662 points, or 18.5% in favor of the Quadro. The Vulkan benchmark shows an even larger gap. Here, the Quadro P400 recorded 5119 points against 3540 for the Intel HD 630. The Quadro leads by 1579 points, which translates to a 44.6% advantage.

These two results indicate that the Quadro P400 is consistently faster in raw compute workloads. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests for the Quadro P400 is 4684 points. The Intel HD Graphics 630 averages 4075 points. This places the Quadro P400 around the 27th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Intel HD 630 sits near the 24th percentile. The relative performance difference in the averaged scores is about 15%.

Where Each One Wins

The win count in the database is 2 for the Quadro P400 and 0 for the HD 630. The Vulkan and OpenCL results are both wins for the NVIDIA card. However, the Intel HD 630 does have a clear advantage in one area: memory architecture. The Quadro P400 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 32.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel HD 630 uses System Shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is System Dependent and its memory size is also System Shared. For systems with fast system memory, the HD 630's performance in memory-bound tasks can be surprisingly competitive. In the database's nearest rivals, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB scores 4657, which is 0.6% higher than the Quadro P400. The AMD Radeon R5 M320 also scores 4657, again 0.6% higher. The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX scores 4727, which is 0.9% lower than the Quadro. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 4628, which is 1.2% higher than the Quadro P400.

Where Each One Wins

The data supports a clear split. For pure compute performance, the Quadro P400 wins on both recorded head-to-head tests. The Geekbench OpenCL run shows an 18.5% advantage, and the Vulkan run shows a 44.6% advantage. These results are consistent with the Quadro P400's dedicated graphics memory and its professional driver stack. The Intel HD 630, being an integrated solution, has no wins in the direct comparisons. Its performance is tied to the CPU's memory subsystem, which can be a bottleneck.

Where the HD 630 does become relevant is in systems where a dedicated card is not desired or needed. The recorded data shows the HD 630 has 192 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 3 ROPs. The Quadro P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Intel part's 3.000 GPixel/s pixel rate and 24.00 GTexel/s texture rate are respectable for an IGP. The Quadro P400 counters with 20.03 GPixel/s and 20.03 GTexel/s. The integrated Intel part also has no power connectors and occupies a single slot by definition, with a 15 W TDP. The Quadro P400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 30 W TDP.

Architecture Differences

The two parts come from different design generations. The P400 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP107 chip. It uses a 14 nm process at Samsung foundry and houses 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, for a transistor density of 25.0 million per mm². The HD 630 is based on Generation 9.5 (Kaby Lake GT2), made on Intel's 14 nm++ process. The database does not list a transistor count or die size for the Intel part. The P400's base clock is 1228 MHz with a boost of 1252 MHz, while the HD 630 runs at a base of 350 MHz and a boost of 1000 MHz. The memory clock on the P4000 is 1002 MHz, effectively giving it 4 Gbps of effective bandwidth. The integrated part uses System Shared memory.

Output options also differ. The P400 sports three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The HD 630's display outputs are Motherboard Dependent, which means the number of ports depends on the specific motherboard. The P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The HD 630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The P400 has a 12.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 10.02 GFLOPS FP16 (1:64). The HD 630 has 384.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 768.0 GFLOPS FP16 (2:1).

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro P400 in the recorded head-to-head tests?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the P400 scored 4249 against 3587 for the HD 630, a lead of 18.5%. In the Vulkan test, the P400 scored 5119 versus 3540, a 44.6% lead.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The database average for the P400 is 4684, and for the HD 630 it is 4075. That is a gap of about 15% in the average compute score, with the P400 ahead.

Q: Does the Intel HD 630 have more shading units?

A: No. The P400 has 256 shading units, while the HD 630 has 192. The P400 also has 16 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The HD 630 has 24 TMUs and 3 ROPs.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each?

A: The P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus for 32.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The HD 630 has System Shared memory, also on a System Shared bus, and its bandwidth is System Dependent.

Q: What is the release period of these products?

A: The P400 was released on 2017-02-06 and is marked as End-of-life. The HD 630 was released on 2016-08-29 and is also marked as End-of-life.

Specification Differences

The table below only highlights the fields where the two differ. The P400 is an NVIDIA product, based on the GP107 chip, the Pascal architecture. It has a base clock of 1228 MHz and a boost of 1252 MHz, and 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. The HD 630 is an Intel product, built on Generation 9.5 (Kaby Lake GT2). It runs at 350 MHz base and 1000 MHz boost, with no dedicated memory (it uses the system). The P400 has a 64-bit memory bus and 32.06 GB/s of bandwidth; the HD 630's bandwidth is system dependent. In terms of output, the P400 supports three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the HD 630's outputs are motherboard dependent. The production status of the P400 is "End-of-life", while the HD 630 is also "End-of-life". The P400 has 3.3 billion transistors on a 132 mm² die, a density of 25.0 million per mm². The HD 630 has no listed transistor data. The P400's predecessor was the Quadro Pascal; its successor is the Quadro Volta. The HD 630 did not have a predecessor or successor listed in the database.

The Verdict

The data in the database is unambiguous about the compute performance. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the faster part in every recorded head-to-head test and in the average score. For tasks that are heavy on raw shader or compute workloads, the P400 is the better choice, and the 44.6% lead in Vulkan is the biggest gap. However, the Intel HD 630 is the only real option when a dedicated graphics card is not possible or desirable. Its system-shared memory and motherboard-dependent outputs integrate into a platform with no additional power connectors, and its 15W TDP means virtually no impact on the power budget. The P400 is a low-profile, 30W part that also does not need discrete power, but it does have its own dedicated VRAM and a fixed three-output configuration of mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. The choice for workstations is the Quadro P400, if performance is measured in compute. The HD 630 is a fallback for systems where an external card is not needed. The database shows the P400 as the winner in 2 direct tests, with 0 for the HD 630.