Intel HD Graphics P530 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded between these two parts is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is a clear win for the Intel HD Graphics P530. The Intel part scores 4549 against the NVIDIA Quadro 2000’s 3898, a 16.7% advantage for the Intel integrated graphics solution. This is a notable outcome because the Quadro 2000 is a dedicated discrete card, while the HD Graphics P530 is built into a Skylake processor. The delta is substantial in compute workloads that scale well with OpenCL, and it indicates that the newer integrated design from Intel manages to outpace an older dedicated GPU in at least one synthetic compute test.

Looking at the broader database context, the Intel HD Graphics P530 sits at the 26th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4560. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 560, which averages 4569 (a 0.2% difference in favor of the AMD part), the AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4577 (0.4% ahead), the AMD FirePro W4190M at 4505 (1.2% behind the Intel part), and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M at 4621 (1.3% ahead). The differences among these rivals are small, all within a couple of percentage points, which suggests that the HD Graphics P530 is competitive with a cluster of low-to-midrange mobile and entry-level desktop GPUs. The 16.7% gap over the Quadro 2000 is much larger than these rival deltas, reinforcing that the Quadro 2000 is a significantly slower part in this specific benchmark.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000, meanwhile, sits at the 23rd percentile among all GPUs, with an average score of 3898. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics at 3883 (0.4% behind the Quadro), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D at 3919 (0.5% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D at 3930 (0.8% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (1.4% ahead). Again, the rival deltas are tight, meaning the Quadro 2000 is essentially in the same performance class as those parts. But the distance to the Intel HD Graphics P530 is far more pronounced, with the Intel part winning the only head-to-head contest by double digits.

What does this mean for real-world workloads? The Geekbench OpenCL test measures general-purpose compute on the GPU, so a 16.7% lead for the Intel part suggests that applications leveraging OpenCL acceleration, such as certain rendering, image processing, or scientific tasks, would complete faster on the Intel HD Graphics P530. The Quadro 2000’s architecture is much older, and the data reflects that age. However, it is worth remembering the Quadro 2000 has only one recorded benchmark entry in the database, while the Intel part has two, so the statistical confidence in the Intel average is slightly higher. Still, the single head-to-head result is unambiguous: the Intel HD Graphics P530 wins.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing generations and design philosophies. The Intel HD Graphics P530 is built on a 14 nm+ process node at Intel’s own foundry, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 uses a 40 nm process from TSMC. That process gap alone explains a great deal about power and density: the Intel part has a die size of 123 mm², whereas the Quadro 2000’s die measures 238 mm². Despite being physically smaller, the Intel chip is far more modern. The Quadro 2000 packs 1,170 million transistors into that 238 mm² area, giving a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The Intel part does not have a recorded transistor count or density, but the smaller die at a much smaller process node implies a denser design.

The architecture names reflect the generational split. Intel uses its Generation 9.0 architecture with the Skylake GT2 chip, while NVIDIA employs the Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip. Fermi was NVIDIA’s architecture for the Quadro x000 series, and it predates the HD Graphics-W (Skylake) generation by several years in the database’s timeline. The Intel part’s generation is listed as “HD Graphics-W (Skylake)”, while the NVIDIA part is “Quadro Fermi (x000)”. These are fundamentally different design eras, and the benchmark results show that the newer architecture, even when integrated, can outperform the older discrete one.

Clock behavior differs as well. The Intel HD Graphics P530 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz, with memory clocked as “System Shared”. The Quadro 2000 has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 650 MHz with 2.6 Gbps effective. This means the Intel part has a defined dynamic range for its core clock, while the Quadro 2000’s core clock is not recorded. The memory situation is starkly different: the Intel part shares system memory (type, bus width, and size are all “System Shared”), while the Quadro 2000 has dedicated 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part’s memory bandwidth is listed as “System Dependent”, meaning it varies with the host system’s memory configuration.

Compute unit counts are interesting: both parts have 192 shading units. However, the Intel HD Graphics P530 has 16 texture mapping units and only 3 raster output units, while the Quadro 2000 has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. This is a major architectural divergence. The Quadro 2000 is built for higher fill-rate work, with more than twice the texture units and more than five times the ROP count. Consequently, the Quadro 2000 achieves a pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s versus the Intel part’s 3.000 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 20.00 GTexel/s versus 16.00 GTexel/s. So even though the Intel part wins the OpenCL compute test, the Quadro 2000 is superior in raw rasterization throughput. This is typical of a discrete GPU designed for workstation graphics, where pixel and texture fill rates matter for CAD and 3D viewport performance.

The Intel part counters with higher raw floating-point throughput in some metrics. Its FP32 performance is 384.0 GFLOPS, and it also supports FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The Quadro 2000’s FP32 is 480.0 GFLOPS, which is actually higher than the Intel part, and it has no recorded FP16 capability. So in pure FP32 peak throughput, the Quadro 2000 leads by a margin, which is consistent with its higher texture and pixel rates. The Intel part’s advantage in the OpenCL benchmark may come from better driver optimization, more efficient use of its shading units, or the fact that its memory bandwidth is system-dependent and could be higher in certain configurations.

Feature support also differs. The Intel HD Graphics P530 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The Intel part also uses a Ring Bus interface, while the Quadro 2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The power envelope is dramatically different: the Intel part has a TDP of 15 W, while the Quadro 2000 is rated at 62 W, with a suggested power supply of 250 W. The Intel part is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width, while the Quadro 2000 is a single-slot card measuring 178 mm in length (7 inches) and 111 mm in height (4.4 inches), with no power connectors required.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530, with an average score of 4560, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000’s 3898.

Q: How much faster is the Intel HD Graphics P530 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Intel part scores 4549 versus 3898 for the Quadro 2000, a 16.7% advantage.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 have any advantages over the Intel HD Graphics P530?

A: Yes. The Quadro 2000 has higher pixel rate (5.000 GPixel/s vs 3.000 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (20.00 GTexel/s vs 16.00 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 peak (480.0 GFLOPS vs 384.0 GFLOPS). It also has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, versus 16 TMUs and 3 ROPs on the Intel part.

Q: What are the memory configurations of the two GPUs?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Intel HD Graphics P530 lists Vulkan 1.3 support. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support recorded.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has a TDP of 62 W and a suggested power supply of 250 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel HD Graphics P530 | NVIDIA Quadro 2000 |

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

| Architecture | Generation 9.0 | Fermi |

| Process node | 14 nm+ | 40 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die size | 123 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 1,170 million |

| Transistor density | Not recorded | 4.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | 350 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost clock | 1000 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory clock | System Shared | 650 MHz, 2.6 Gbps effective |

| Memory size | System Shared | 1024 MB |

| Memory type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | System Dependent | 41.60 GB/s |

| TMUs | 16 | 32 |

| ROPs | 3 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 3.000 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 16.00 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 384.0 GFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

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

| TDP | 15 W | 62 W |

| Slot width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 250 W |

| Bus interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

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

| Vulkan support | 1.3 | Not recorded |

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 178 mm length, 111 mm height |

| Release date | 2015-08-31 | 2010-12-23 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | 599 USD |

| Successor | Not recorded | Quadro Kepler |

| Predecessor | Not recorded | Quadro FX Tesla |

The Verdict

The data supports two different use cases. For compute-oriented OpenCL workloads, the Intel HD Graphics P530 is the stronger choice. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 16.7%, has a higher average benchmark score (4560 vs 3898), and supports newer APIs including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12_1. Its 15 W TDP also means it can be deployed in systems with minimal power and cooling overhead, and it requires no dedicated memory or expansion slot. For users running applications that rely on OpenCL acceleration and who value modern API compatibility, the Intel part is clearly ahead.

However, for traditional rasterization workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has structural advantages that the benchmark does not capture. With 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, a pixel rate of 5.000 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 20.00 GTexel/s, and higher FP32 peak at 480.0 GFLOPS, the Quadro 2000 is designed to push pixels and triangles efficiently. It also has dedicated GDDR5 memory with 41.60 GB/s of bandwidth, which is deterministic and not dependent on the host system’s memory configuration. Its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and single-slot form factor make it a straightforward drop-in for older workstation systems. The Quadro 2000 also has a recorded launch MSRP of 599 USD, indicating its original workstation positioning.

The choice between these two parts comes down to workload type. If the primary use is general-purpose compute with OpenCL, the Intel HD Graphics P530 is the faster part in this comparison. If the use is legacy workstation graphics, where fill rate and dedicated memory matter, the Quadro 2000 offers higher raw throughput in those specific metrics. The Intel part is newer, more power-efficient, and API-rich, while the Quadro 2000 is older but retains advantages in texture and pixel processing. Neither part is still in production, as both are listed as end-of-life. The database’s percentile rankings place them close together (26th vs 23rd percentile), but the head-to-head result gives the Intel part the only direct win. For a modern integrated solution that can outperform an older discrete card in compute, the Intel HD Graphics P530 is the data-backed recommendation. For rasterization-heavy legacy tasks, the Quadro 2000’s fill-rate specs are the reason to consider it.