Intel HD Graphics P530 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two benchmark comparisons between the NVIDIA GeForce 940M and the Intel HD Graphics P530, and the results tell a story of two very different performance profiles. The first test, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA part. The GeForce 940M scores 6018 points, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 manages only 4549 points. That is a 32.3% advantage for the NVIDIA GPU, a substantial margin that reflects the fundamental differences in their compute architectures.

OpenCL workloads tend to stress raw shading throughput and memory bandwidth, and the data here aligns with that expectation. The GeForce 940M pushes 1,124.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, whereas the Intel part delivers just 384.0 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA GPU also has a much wider memory pipeline, with 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units compared to Intel's 192 shading units and 16 TMUs. These specifications translate directly into the benchmark gap observed in the OpenCL test.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, flips the script entirely, though by a much narrower margin. Here the Intel HD Graphics P530 edges out the GeForce 940M, scoring 4571 against 4549. That is a 0.5% difference, essentially a statistical tie in practical terms, but it still counts as a win for Intel in the head-to-head tally. Vulkan is a lower-level API that often rewards different architectural strengths, and the Intel part's support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 may play a role in this outcome, though the recorded data does not specify the exact cause.

What is striking is the asymmetry in these results. The GeForce 940M wins one test by over 30%, while the Intel part wins the other by less than 1%. This suggests that the NVIDIA GPU has a clear compute advantage in traditional workloads, but the Intel GPU can hold its own in certain modern API scenarios. The average benchmark scores reflect this split: the GeForce 940M averages 5284 points across both tests, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 averages 4560 points. That puts the NVIDIA part roughly 15.9% ahead on average, but the Vulkan result shows that Intel is not without merit in specific contexts.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the GeForce 940M sits in a tight cluster. Its average score of 5284 is only 0.4% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (5308) and 0.6% below the GeForce 930A (5317). It also trails the GeForce 840M by just 0.7% (5322) while leading the GeForce GTX 760M by 0.9% (5236). This places the 940M in a narrow performance band where small differences separate products. The Intel HD Graphics P530, by contrast, has an average score of 4560, which is 0.2% below the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 0.4% below the Radeon R5 M230 (4577). It sits 1.2% above the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505) and 1.3% below the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621). The percentile rankings reinforce this picture: the GeForce 940M lands in the 31st percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel part sits at the 26th percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M averages 5284 points across its recorded benchmarks, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 averages 4560 points. The NVIDIA part holds a clear lead in overall average performance.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics P530 win any benchmark against the GeForce 940M?

A: Yes. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Intel part scores 4571 compared to the GeForce 940M's 4549, a 0.5% advantage for Intel. This is the only recorded test where Intel comes out ahead.

Q: How large is the GeForce 940M's margin in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The GeForce 940M scores 6018 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4549. That represents a 32.3% advantage for the NVIDIA GPU, the largest single-test delta in this comparison.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for these two GPUs?

A: The GeForce 940M sits in the 31st percentile of all GPUs in the database. The Intel HD Graphics P530 is in the 26th percentile. This means the NVIDIA part outperforms a larger share of the overall GPU population.

Q: How does the GeForce 940M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The GeForce 940M's average score of 5284 is nearly identical to the GeForce GTX 980M (5308, 0.4% behind), the GeForce 930A (5317, 0.6% behind), and the GeForce 840M (5322, 0.7% behind). It is 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 760M (5236).

Q: How does the Intel HD Graphics P530 stack up against its nearest competitors?

A: The Intel part's average of 4560 is 0.2% below the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 0.4% below the Radeon R5 M230 (4577). It is 1.2% above the FirePro W4190M (4505) and 1.3% below the Quadro M3000M (4621).

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a straightforward conclusion for most use cases: the NVIDIA GeForce 940M is the stronger overall GPU. Its average benchmark score of 5284 versus 4560 for the Intel HD Graphics P530 represents a meaningful gap, and its 32.3% lead in OpenCL shows a substantial compute advantage. The NVIDIA part also carries more shading units (512 vs 192), more TMUs (32 vs 16), and a higher pixel rate (17.57 GPixel/s vs 3.00 GPixel/s). For anyone running OpenCL-based workloads, general 3D rendering, or applications that rely on traditional GPU compute, the GeForce 940M is the clear pick.

However, the Intel HD Graphics P530 is not without its niche. Its Vulkan score of 4571 edges out the GeForce 940M's 4549, albeit by only 0.5%. This suggests that in Vulkan-specific scenarios, the Intel part can hold its own, possibly due to its more modern API feature set, including DirectX 12 (12_1) support. The Intel GPU also operates at a much lower power envelope, with a 15 W TDP versus 75 W for the NVIDIA part, making it suitable for systems where power consumption is a priority. The data does not include battery life or thermal measurements, but the TDP figures alone indicate a significant efficiency advantage for Intel.

For users who prioritize raw performance and have the power budget to accommodate it, the GeForce 940M is the superior choice. For those who need Vulkan performance, lower power draw, or an integrated solution that avoids a discrete MXM module, the Intel HD Graphics P530 has a case. The verdict is not unanimous, but the weight of the evidence favors NVIDIA.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The GeForce 940M uses a GM107 chip built on TSMC's 28 nm process, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 uses a Skylake GT2 chip on Intel's 14 nm+ process. The die sizes are comparable, with NVIDIA at 148 mm² and Intel at 123 mm², though the GeForce 940M packs more transistors at 1,870 million versus an unspecified count for Intel. Transistor density for the NVIDIA part is 12.6 million per mm², while Intel's density is not recorded.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The GeForce 940M runs at a base clock of 1020 MHz with a boost of 1098 MHz, while the Intel part starts at 350 MHz and boosts to 1000 MHz. Memory configurations are fundamentally different: the NVIDIA GPU uses 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Intel GPU relies on system shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent."

The compute resources tell a similar story. The GeForce 940M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Intel HD Graphics P530 has 192 shading units, 16 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. Pixel rate is 17.57 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 3.00 GPixel/s for Intel. Texture rate is 35.14 GTexel/s versus 16.00 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS. The Intel part does support FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS, a feature the GeForce 940M does not list.

Power and packaging differ as well. The GeForce 940M has a 75 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot width with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The Intel part has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, and has no power connectors listed. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for NVIDIA and "Motherboard Dependent" for Intel. API support diverges on DirectX and Vulkan: the GeForce 940M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The GeForce 940M is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, a design optimized for power efficiency within a discrete GPU form factor. It is part of the GeForce 900M generation and uses the GM107 chip. The Intel HD Graphics P530, by contrast, is based on Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture, specifically the Skylake GT2 integrated graphics block, and belongs to the HD Graphics-W (Skylake) generation.

The process nodes differ by a full generation step: 28 nm for NVIDIA versus 14 nm+ for Intel. This gives Intel a theoretical density advantage, though the recorded transistor count for the Intel part is absent, making direct comparisons impossible. The GeForce 940M ships with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the Intel die is smaller at 123 mm² but without a transistor figure.

Cache structures are not listed in the database, so no direct comparison can be made there. What is clear is that the two architectures take fundamentally different approaches to memory. The GeForce 940M uses dedicated GDDR3-style memory with a fixed 64-bit bus and a recorded bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. The Intel part shares system memory, with bandwidth dependent on the host platform, which means its effective performance can vary based on the CPU and memory configuration in the system.

Feature support also differs in notable ways. The GeForce 940M lists Vulkan 1.4 support, a newer API version than the Intel part's Vulkan 1.3. The Intel GPU, however, supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which is a higher feature level than the GeForce 940M's DirectX 12 (11_0). This explains the Vulkan benchmark result where Intel came out slightly ahead. The GeForce 940M also has a significantly higher pixel rate and texture rate, reflecting its larger ROP and TMU counts.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 940M wins decisively in any workload that stresses traditional GPU compute. Its OpenCL score of 6018 versus 4549 for the Intel part, a 32.3% margin, points to advantages in rendering, physics simulation, and other compute-heavy tasks. The higher FP32 throughput (1,124.4 GFLOPS), larger shading unit count (512), and dedicated memory bandwidth (14.40 GB/s) make it the better choice for applications that rely on these resources. Its pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s is nearly six times that of the Intel chip, which should translate to better fill-rate performance in rasterization-bound scenarios.

The Intel HD Graphics P530 wins in Vulkan-specific workloads, where it edges out the GeForce 940M by 0.5% (4571 vs 4549). This is a narrow margin, but it indicates that the Intel architecture handles Vulkan's explicit API model competently, likely aided by its higher DirectX feature level (12_1). The Intel part also wins on power efficiency, with a 15 W TDP compared to 75 W for the NVIDIA part, making it suitable for thin-and-light systems or battery-sensitive use cases. Its FP16 support at 768.0 GFLOPS, a feature the GeForce 940M does not list, could also be an advantage in workloads that utilize half-precision arithmetic.

For the vast majority of applications, the GeForce 940M is the stronger performer. But the data shows that the Intel HD Graphics P530 has carved out a niche in Vulkan and low-power scenarios, and those are the areas where it should be the preferred choice.