Intel HD Graphics P530 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4549, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919. That is a 16.1% advantage for the Intel part, making it the winner of the sole head-to-head benchmark recorded.

The magnitude of this lead is notable when placed in context. The P530 sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K2000D sits at the 23rd percentile. Both are near the lower end of the performance spectrum, but the Intel integrated solution is clearly ahead of the older discrete card in this workload.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each product helps calibrate the numbers. The P530's average benchmark score is 4560, which puts it within 0.2% of the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 0.4% of the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577). It is also 1.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505) and 1.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621). The Quadro K2000D, with its average score of 3919, is 0.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930) and 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (3898). It is also 0.9% behind the GeForce GT 745M (3953) and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883).

In short, the Intel HD Graphics P530 delivers a level of compute performance that rivals low-end discrete GPUs from both AMD and NVIDIA, despite being an integrated solution. The Quadro K2000D, meanwhile, is clustered with older and less capable discrete parts. The 16.1% head-to-head delta is not a marginal gap; it represents a meaningful generational and architectural leap.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4549 against 3919 for the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, a 16.1% difference.

Q: How does the Intel HD Graphics P530 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The P530 has an average benchmark score of 4560. It is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon RX 560, which is 0.2% behind, and the AMD Radeon R5 M230, which is 0.4% behind. It is 1.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4190M and 1.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M.

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K2000D has an average benchmark score of 3919. It is 0.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D and 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 2000. It is also 0.9% behind the GeForce GT 745M and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 uses system shared memory with a system dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the production statuses of these GPUs?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The Intel HD Graphics P530 was released on August 31, 2015, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D was released on February 28, 2013.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: No. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel GPU has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Architecture Differences

The Intel HD Graphics P530 is built on the Skylake GT2 chip using Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture. It is manufactured on a 14 nm+ process at Intel's own foundry, with a die size of 123 mm². The Quadro K2000D uses the GK107 chip based on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The Kepler die is 118 mm² and contains 1,270 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 10.8 million per mm². The Intel chip does not have a recorded transistor count or density in the database.

The compute resources differ substantially. The Intel HD Graphics P530 has 192 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and only 3 raster output units. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. On paper, the NVIDIA part has double the shaders, double the TMUs, and over five times the ROPs. Yet the benchmark result favors Intel, which indicates that raw shader counts do not translate directly into OpenCL performance in this comparison.

The memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Intel part uses system shared memory, meaning there is no dedicated VRAM and bandwidth is system dependent. The Quadro K2000D uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface with 64.00 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth. This gives the NVIDIA part a clear theoretical advantage in memory-bound workloads, though the recorded benchmark does not reflect that advantage.

Feature support also differs. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Intel GPU is a Generation 9.0 part from the Skylake family, while the NVIDIA GPU is a Kepler generation part from the Quadro Kx000 family. The Quadro K2000D lists a predecessor (Quadro Fermi) and successor (Quadro Maxwell), while the Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. The Intel HD Graphics P530 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1000 MHz. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has no recorded base or boost clock, but its memory runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. The Intel part's memory is system shared, while the NVIDIA part has 2 GB of GDDR5.

The process nodes are different: Intel uses 14 nm+ while NVIDIA uses 28 nm. The die sizes are close (123 mm² vs 118 mm²), but the transistor counts are only recorded for the NVIDIA part. The Intel GPU has a pixel rate of 3.000 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 16.00 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA GPU has a pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s. The Intel part delivers 384.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and 768.0 GFLOPS of FP16 performance (at a 2:1 ratio). The NVIDIA part delivers 732.7 GFLOPS of FP32 and has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power consumption differs significantly. The Intel HD Graphics P530 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has a TDP of 51 W. The NVIDIA part is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the Intel part is motherboard dependent, while the NVIDIA part offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. Physical dimensions are recorded only for the NVIDIA part: 202 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner in compute performance. The Intel HD Graphics P530 outscores the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D by 16.1% in the Geekbench OpenCL test, despite being an integrated GPU with far fewer shading units, TMUs, and ROPs. The Intel part also has a newer architecture (Generation 9.0 vs Kepler), a smaller process node (14 nm+ vs 28 nm), and a dramatically lower TDP (15 W vs 51 W). It supports a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

However, the Quadro K2000D is not without its strengths. It offers dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which the Intel part cannot match due to its system shared memory design. It also has over twice the FP32 throughput (732.7 GFLOPS vs 384.0 GFLOPS) and higher pixel and texture rates. For workloads that are sensitive to memory bandwidth or raw shader throughput, the NVIDIA part may still hold an advantage in scenarios not captured by the single recorded benchmark.

The percentile rankings reinforce the Intel part's lead. The P530 sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K2000D sits at the 23rd percentile. The nearest rivals for each part also tell a story: the Intel part is clustered with low-end discrete GPUs like the Radeon RX 560 and Quadro M3000M, while the NVIDIA part is grouped with older parts like the Quadro 2000 and GeForce GT 745M.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel HD Graphics P530 wins in raw compute performance as measured by OpenCL. Its 4549 score versus 3919 is a 16.1% margin, and its average benchmark score of 4560 places it among low-end discrete GPUs from a later generation. It also wins on power efficiency, with a 15 W TDP compared to 51 W for the NVIDIA part. The Intel GPU is an integrated solution, requiring no slot space, power connectors, or dedicated memory, making it suitable for compact or low-power systems. Its newer API support, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, gives it an edge in software compatibility with modern titles and applications.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D wins on memory configuration. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 with 64.00 GB/s of dedicated bandwidth is a substantial advantage over system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. This could matter in workloads that repeatedly access large datasets, where dedicated VRAM reduces contention with the CPU. The NVIDIA part also has higher theoretical throughput metrics: 732.7 GFLOPS FP32, 30.53 GTexel/s texture rate, and 7.632 GPixel/s pixel rate. These figures suggest it may perform better in tasks that leverage shader-heavy or texture-heavy operations, even if the recorded OpenCL benchmark does not reflect this. The Quadro K2000D also lists a launch MSRP of 599 USD, though no pricing comparison is available for the Intel part.

For users prioritizing benchmark scores, modern API support, and low power draw, the Intel HD Graphics P530 is the stronger choice. For users requiring dedicated video memory, higher theoretical throughput, and a standalone card form factor, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has specific advantages that the recorded data cannot fully dismiss. The database records only one head-to-head win for the Intel part, and that win is substantial enough to define the overall comparison.