Intel HD Graphics P530 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records two direct comparisons between the Intel HD Graphics P530 and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000, and in both cases the integrated Intel solution emerges as the faster part. The results are consistent, though not by a dramatic margin.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4549 against the Quadro K2000's 4071. That is an 11.7% advantage for the Intel part, a meaningful gap in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL. The margin is enough to place the two parts in different performance tiers despite the Quadro's dedicated memory and higher thermal envelope.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story. The Intel HD Graphics P530 records 4571, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 manages 4191. The delta here is 9.1%, slightly narrower than OpenCL but still a clear win for the integrated GPU. Vulkan is a lower-overhead API, so the fact that the Intel part maintains its lead in that environment suggests the architectural efficiency of the Skylake GT2 chip is not limited to a single driver stack or compute framework.

Across the two recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Intel HD Graphics P530 wins both, giving it a 2-0 sweep. The average benchmark score in the database reflects this: the Intel part sits at 4560, while the Quadro K2000 averages 3964. That overall gap of roughly 15% between their average scores is larger than either individual test delta, which indicates that the Quadro's other benchmark results (including a Geekbench Metal score of 3630) drag its average down relative to the Intel part's two-score set.

It is worth noting the context of these scores. The Intel HD Graphics P530 sits at the 26th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K2000 is at the 24th percentile. Both are decidedly low-tier parts by modern standards, but the data shows the Intel chip holding a consistent edge. The nearest rivals for each part reinforce this positioning. The Intel HD Graphics P530 is bracketed by the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569, a 0.2% deficit), the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577, a 0.4% deficit), the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505, a 1.2% advantage), and the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621, a 1.3% deficit). The Quadro K2000, meanwhile, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, a 0.2% advantage), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, a 0.2% advantage), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, a 0.3% advantage), and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, a 0.3% deficit). The Intel part's closest rivals are all within a 1.3% band, while the Quadro's are within 0.3%, indicating that the Quadro sits in a tighter cluster of similar performers.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 wins with a score of 4549, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K2000's 4071, a delta of 11.7%.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 win any of the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the Intel HD Graphics P530 wins both. The Quadro K2000 has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How does the Vulkan performance compare between the two?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4571 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 scores 4191, giving the Intel part a 9.1% lead.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 has an average benchmark score of 4560, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 averages 3964. The Intel part's average is higher by roughly 596 points.

Q: How do the two GPUs rank relative to all other GPUs in the database?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 falls at the 26th percentile among all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 sits at the 24th percentile.

Q: Is the NVIDIA Quadro K2000's dedicated memory an advantage in these benchmarks?

A: Despite having 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with a 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, the Quadro K2000 still trails the Intel HD Graphics P530, which uses system shared memory, in both recorded benchmark tests.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, conclusion: the Intel HD Graphics P530 is the faster GPU in synthetic compute benchmarks. It wins both head-to-head tests, with an 11.7% lead in OpenCL and a 9.1% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 4560 is substantially higher than the Quadro K2000's 3964, and its 26th percentile ranking is two points above the Quadro's 24th percentile.

For a user choosing between these two in a workload that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the Intel HD Graphics P530 is the better performer. The fact that it achieves these results as an integrated part with a 15 W TDP, versus the Quadro K2000's 51 W TDP, makes the result more striking. The Quadro K2000 does bring dedicated GDDR5 memory and a higher shading unit count, but the benchmark results show that those specifications do not translate into superior compute scores in the tests recorded.

However, the Quadro K2000 is not without its own merits in the broader context. It supports a Metal benchmark score of 3630, which the Intel part does not have recorded, and its nearest rivals in the database are extremely close in performance, all within 0.3% of its average. But when directly compared to the Intel HD Graphics P530, the data shows the Intel part winning on both metrics. For compute-focused tasks using these APIs, the Intel HD Graphics P530 is the recommended choice based strictly on recorded performance.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification field. The Intel HD Graphics P530 uses a Skylake GT2 chip built on a 14 nm+ process by Intel, with a die size of 123 mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 uses a GK107 chip built on a 28 nm process by TSMC, with a die size of 118 mm² and 1,270 million transistors at a density of 10.8M per mm².

The shading unit counts are starkly different: the Intel part has 192 shading units, while the Quadro K2000 has 384, exactly double. Texture mapping units follow the same pattern: the Intel part has 16 TMUs, the Quadro has 32. Raster operation units differ even more sharply, with the Intel part at 3 ROPs and the Quadro at 16 ROPs.

These unit counts drive the theoretical throughput numbers. The Intel HD Graphics P530 achieves a pixel rate of 3.000 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 16.00 GTexel/s, and an FP32 rate of 384.0 GFLOPS. The Quadro K2000, despite its lower clock speeds not being listed in the database, achieves a pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s, and an FP32 rate of 732.7 GFLOPS. The Quadro also has an FP16 rate, which is listed as null, while the Intel part supports FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

Clock speeds differ: the Intel part has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz, while the Quadro K2000 has no base or boost clock listed, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Memory configurations are completely different: the Intel part uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth, while the Quadro K2000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The Intel HD Graphics P530 has a TDP of 15 W and is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface. The Quadro K2000 has a TDP of 51 W, is a single-slot card with no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The Quadro measures 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the Intel part has no dimensions listed. Display outputs differ: the Intel part is motherboard dependent, while the Quadro offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

API support shows both parts supporting DirectX 12, but at different feature levels: the Intel part supports 12 (12_1), while the Quadro supports 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the Intel part supports Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro supports 1.2.175.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The Intel HD Graphics P530 is based on the Generation 9.0 architecture, specifically the Skylake GT2 chip, and belongs to the HD Graphics-W (Skylake) generation. It is an integrated graphics processor designed to share system memory and rely on the host CPU's memory controller. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000, in contrast, is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip, part of the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. Kepler was NVIDIA's high-efficiency architecture for the 28 nm era, designed for discrete cards with dedicated VRAM.

The process technology separates them by a full node generation. Intel's 14 nm+ process is significantly more advanced than TSMC's 28 nm process used for the Quadro. This explains how the Intel part achieves a 15 W TDP despite running at a 1000 MHz boost clock, while the Quadro requires 51 W to operate a larger chip with more compute units. The die sizes are similar, 123 mm² for the Intel part and 118 mm² for the Quadro, but the Intel die packs its transistors onto a much denser process.

The compute architectures themselves are organized differently. The Intel part has 192 shading units, 16 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs, a configuration that emphasizes general compute throughput over pixel fill. The Quadro K2000 doubles the shading units to 384, doubles the TMUs to 32, and more than quintuples the ROPs to 16, giving it a much more balanced rasterization pipeline. The theoretical rates reflect this: the Quadro's pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s is more than double the Intel part's 3.000 GPixel/s, and its FP32 rate of 732.7 GFLOPS is nearly double the Intel part's 384.0 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The Intel HD Graphics P530 has no dedicated memory; it uses system shared memory with a type of system shared and a bus width of system shared, making its bandwidth entirely system dependent. The Quadro K2000 has a fixed memory subsystem: 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with a fixed 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. This is a significant advantage for the Quadro in memory-bound workloads, but the benchmark results show that in the OpenCL and Vulkan tests recorded, the Intel part's compute efficiency overcomes the memory deficit.

The feature sets also differ in API support. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 at the 12_1 feature level and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 at the 11_0 feature level and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Intel part's higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version indicate a more modern driver and hardware feature set, which aligns with its later release date. The Quadro K2000 was released in early 2013, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 came later in 2015. The production status for both is listed as end-of-life.