Intel HD Graphics P530 vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M Comparison

The Intel HD Graphics P530 and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the mid-2010s, but the recorded benchmark data shows a clear gap between them. Across the two head-to-head tests in the database, the GeForce 840M wins both, with an average benchmark score of 5322 against the P530's 4560. That is a meaningful difference in practice, though the margin varies considerably depending on the workload, and the underlying hardware explains why.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M takes both.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the 840M scored 5764 while the Intel HD Graphics P530 managed 4549. That is a 21.1 percent gap in NVIDIA's favor, and it is the largest margin in the dataset. OpenCL compute workloads reward raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth, and the 840M has the advantage on both fronts: 384 shading units versus 192, and 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute versus 384.0 GFLOPS on the P530. The compute result tracks the hardware almost exactly, which is what you would expect from a test that leans heavily on raw shader arithmetic.

Geekbench Vulkan tells a different story. Here the 840M scored 4880 against the P530's 4571, a gap of just 6.3 percent. The Intel integrated solution is much closer in this graphics API test than it was in compute, which suggests the P530's architecture and drivers hold up better when the workload resembles real graphics rendering rather than general-purpose compute. A 6.3 percent deficit is close enough that platform factors could narrow it further in specific systems.

The aggregate picture: the 840M's average benchmark score of 5322 sits at the 31st percentile versus all GPUs in the database, while the P530's 4560 average places it at the 26th percentile. Five percentile points apart is a real but not dramatic separation. Neither GPU is remotely competitive with modern hardware, but within their class, the 840M holds the higher position.

Context from each GPU's nearest rivals reinforces the gap. The P530 scores within striking distance of the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569 average, a 0.2 percent difference), the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577, 0.4 percent), the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505, where the P530 is 1.2 percent ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000J listed as the Quadro M3000M (4621, 1.3 percent ahead of the P530). The 840M, meanwhile, clusters near the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317, 0.1 percent), the GeForce GTX 980M (5308, 0.3 percent), the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358, 0.7 percent behind the 840M), and the GeForce 940M (5284, 0.7 percent behind). In short, the 840M's neighborhood is a consistently higher-scoring neighborhood.

Where Each One Wins

Strictly on the recorded data, the GeForce 840M wins everywhere. It took both head-to-head benchmarks, two wins to zero. But the texture of those wins matters for choosing between systems.

For compute-oriented workloads, OpenCL GPU compute in particular, the 840M is decisively the better pick. The 21.1 percent OpenCL margin, backed by more than double the shading units and more than double the FP32 throughput, makes it the clear choice for anything that pushes general-purpose GPU compute through OpenCL.

For graphics API workloads, the race tightens. The 6.3 percent Vulkan gap means the P530 delivers most of the 840M's performance in Vulkan-based graphics scenarios. If a system is built around the P530 and the software stack is Vulkan, the recorded data shows the practical difference is small.

Beyond raw scores, a few recorded characteristics favor each part in different situations. The P530 draws 15 W as an integrated solution on Intel's own 14 nm+ process, versus 33 W for the 840M on TSMC's 28 nm node. Half the recorded power draw is a genuine advantage for thin-and-light systems. The P530 also supports a newer DirectX feature level, 12_1 versus 12 (11_0) on the 840M, which can matter for titles or applications that require the higher feature level. The 840M counters with dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus delivering 16.02 GB/s, while the P530 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. Dedicated memory means consistent performance regardless of host system configuration. The 840M also posts higher raw rasterization and texturing rates: 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s against 3.000 GPixel/s and 16.00 GTexel/s.

The Verdict

The data points to the GeForce 840M as the stronger performer overall. It won both recorded benchmarks, holds a five-point percentile advantage, and its compute lead is large enough (21.1 percent in OpenCL) that it cannot be dismissed as measurement noise. Anyone choosing between two otherwise similar laptops for GPU compute or general graphics should favor the 840M-based system.

The P530 case rests on efficiency and feature level, not benchmark victories. At 15 W versus 33 W, with DirectX 12_1 support and Vulkan 1.3 (versus the 840M's Vulkan 1.4, which is actually newer on NVIDIA's side), it is the lower-power option that stays within 6.3 percent on Vulkan graphics. For buyers prioritizing battery life and thermals in an integrated package, that trade is defensible. But purely on the numbers, the 840M is the faster GPU, and by a comfortable margin where compute is concerned.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster overall?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M. It won both head-to-head benchmarks, with an average benchmark score of 5322 versus 4560 for the Intel HD Graphics P530.

Q: How big is the performance gap?

A: It depends on the workload. The 840M leads by 21.1 percent in Geekbench OpenCL but only 6.3 percent in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Do either of these GPUs support ray tracing or AI acceleration?

A: No. Neither part has RT cores or tensor cores recorded in the database.

Q: Which one uses less power?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530, with a 15 W TDP versus 33 W for the GeForce 840M.

Q: How do they compare on memory?

A: The 840M has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The P530 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, so its effective performance varies with the host platform.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The P530 was released on 31 August 2015, and the 840M on 11 March 2014.

Architecture Differences

These two parts come from entirely different design lineages. The P530 is Intel's Skylake GT2 chip, part of Intel's Generation 9.0 graphics architecture, fabricated on Intel's own 14 nm+ process. Its die measures 123 mm², and it communicates over a Ring Bus interface as an integrated graphics solution with motherboard-dependent display outputs.

The 840M is NVIDIA's GM108S, a Maxwell-architecture part from the GeForce 800M series, built on TSMC's 28 nm process. Its die is smaller at 77 mm² and packs 1,020 million transistors at a density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. It connects over PCIe 3.0 x8 and, despite being listed with IGP slot width and no power connectors, functions as a discrete mobile GPU with portable-device-dependent display output.

The architectural era gap shows up in the API support. The P530 offers DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The 840M offers DirectX 12 with feature level 11_0, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. So the Intel part supports the higher DirectX feature level while the NVIDIA part carries the newer Vulkan version. Neither GPU offers FP16 support comparable on paper: the P530 lists 768.0 GFLOPS at half precision (a 2:1 ratio), while no FP16 figure is recorded for the 840M.

Specification Differences

The spec sheet diverges in nearly every meaningful column.

Process and foundry: 14 nm+ at Intel for the P530 versus 28 nm at TSMC for the 840M. Die size: 123 mm² versus 77 mm². The 840M has a recorded transistor count of 1,020 million and a density of 13.2M per mm², while the P530 has neither figure recorded.

Clocking philosophies differ sharply. The P530 runs a base clock of 350 MHz boosting to 1000 MHz. The 840M runs 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, with memory clocked at 1001 MHz, 2 Gbps effective. Memory itself is the biggest structural difference: system-shared everything on the P530 versus dedicated 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth on the 840M.

Shader resources: the 840M doubles the shading units, 384 to 192. Texture units are tied at 16 each, but render outputs differ at 8 for the 840M versus 3 for the P530. That ROP deficit explains the pixel rate gap, 8.992 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 3.000 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rates are closer, at 17.98 GTexel/s versus 16.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute lands at 863.2 GFLOPS for the 840M against 384.0 GFLOPS for the P530.

Power and platform: 15 W TDP for the P530 against 33 W for the 840M, with the Intel part riding a Ring Bus and the NVIDIA part using PCIe 3.0 x8. Release timing differs by roughly a year and a half, and the 840M sits in an explicit product lineage with the GeForce 700M as predecessor and GeForce 900M as successor, while no predecessor or successor is recorded for the P530. For buyers today, both are end-of-life parts, and the benchmark record favors the 840M wherever performance is the deciding factor.