GPU Comparison

Intel HD Graphics P530 and NVIDIA Quadro K3000M represent two distinctly different approaches to mobile graphics, separated by three years of silicon evolution. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark result, with the Intel part emerging victorious, though the underlying specifications tell a more nuanced story about where each GPU is best suited.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4549 against the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M’s 4241. That is a 7.3% advantage for the Intel integrated solution, a notable margin given that the Quadro K3000M is a discrete mobile workstation GPU with dedicated memory. The Intel part’s win is not marginal in the context of its rivals; its average benchmark score of 4560 places it just 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 1.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621), while sitting 1.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505). This suggests the P530 is performing at the upper edge of its peer group, punching well above its integrated-class roots.

The Quadro K3000M, by contrast, posts an average benchmark score of 4241, which places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, one point lower than the P530’s 26th percentile. Among its nearest rivals, the Quadro trails the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268) by 0.6% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282) by 1.0%, while leading the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) by 1.2% and the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295) by 1.3%. The picture here is of a GPU that is competitive within a similar performance band, yet the P530’s 7.3% lead in the direct comparison is consistent with its slightly higher percentile ranking. The data does not show any benchmark where the Quadro K3000M wins outright; the head-to-head table records one win for Intel and zero for NVIDIA.

The Verdict

The benchmark evidence points decisively toward the Intel HD Graphics P530 for raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads. Its 7.3% margin over the Quadro K3000M is substantial, and its average score of 4560 versus 4241 reinforces that this is not a fluke of a single test run. The P530’s position at the 26th percentile versus the Quadro’s 25th percentile, while close, still favors Intel. For users whose primary concern is synthetic compute benchmarks, the P530 is the clear choice from this data set.

However, the verdict shifts when considering the full specification profile. The Quadro K3000M is a professional mobile workstation GPU with 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The P530 relies on system-shared memory with bandwidth described only as "System Dependent." In real-world graphics workloads, particularly those that stress memory capacity or bandwidth rather than raw compute, the Quadro’s dedicated memory subsystem gives it an inherent architectural advantage that the OpenCL score does not capture. The data also shows the Quadro has a higher pixel rate (7.848 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s) and texture rate (31.39 GTexel/s versus 16.00 GTexel/s), which are critical for traditional rendering tasks.

Thus, the verdict is split: for compute-heavy OpenCL applications, the Intel P530 wins on measured performance. For memory-bound or rasterization-heavy workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M’s specification sheet suggests it would be the stronger option, despite losing the one benchmark we have. The data does not support a blanket recommendation for either; it depends entirely on the workload.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. Intel’s HD Graphics P530 is built on the Skylake GT2 chip, using Generation 9.0 architecture, and is fabricated on Intel’s 14 nm+ process node. The chip measures 123 mm², and the GPU is integrated into the processor package, communicating over a Ring Bus interface. Its shading array consists of 192 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and just 3 raster output pipelines. The compute capabilities are rated at 384.0 GFLOPS for FP32 and 768.0 GFLOPS for FP16, the latter at a 2:1 ratio, indicating support for half-precision compute.

NVIDIA’s Quadro K3000M, in contrast, is a discrete GPU built on the GK104 chip, using the Kepler architecture, and manufactured on TSMC’s 28 nm process. The die is substantially larger at 294 mm² and contains 3,540 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The GPU is mounted on an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. It features 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, significantly more than the Intel part in every count. Its compute throughput is 753.4 GFLOPS FP32, nearly double the P530’s, though it has no listed FP16 capability. The Quadro’s pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s is 2.6 times higher, and its texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s is roughly double the Intel’s 16.00 GTexel/s.

The process node difference is stark: Intel’s 14 nm+ versus TSMC’s 28 nm. This explains how the P530 achieves competitive compute performance with far fewer shading units and a much smaller die, though the Quadro compensates with raw hardware resources. The Quadro’s transistor count of 3,540 million dwarfs anything Intel could integrate into an IGP, but the power envelope tells the story, the P530 is rated at 15 W TDP, while the Quadro draws 75 W. That fivefold power difference is the trade-off for discrete performance.

Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal numerous divergences between the two parts. Clock speeds: the Intel P530 runs at a base of 350 MHz with a boost up to 1000 MHz, whereas the Quadro K3000M runs at a flat 654 MHz for both base and boost. Memory configuration: the P530 uses system-shared memory with no dedicated size, type, bus width, or bandwidth figures beyond "System Dependent," while the Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock for the Quadro is 700 MHz, translating to 2.8 Gbps effective.

Compute units: the P530 has 192 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 3 ROPs; the Quadro has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel and texture rates: 3.000 GPixel/s and 16.00 GTexel/s for Intel versus 7.848 GPixel/s and 31.39 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 performance: 384.0 GFLOPS versus 753.4 GFLOPS. The P530 offers FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS, a feature the Quadro lacks entirely. Power: 15 W versus 75 W TDP. Form factor: IGP versus MXM Module. Power connectors: the Quadro lists "None," while the P530 has no such field. Display outputs: "Motherboard Dependent" for Intel, "Portable Device Dependent" for NVIDIA. API support: the P530 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175; both list OpenGL 4.6. Production status is end-of-life for both, with the P530 releasing in 2015 and the Quadro in 2012.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel HD Graphics P530 has an average benchmark score of 4560, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M’s 4241, a difference of 319 points.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The Intel P530 scores 4549 against the Quadro’s 4241, giving Intel a 7.3% lead in that specific benchmark.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 89.60 GB/s of dedicated GDDR5 bandwidth on a 256-bit bus, while the P530 uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent."

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, three times the 192 shading units found in the Intel HD Graphics P530.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The Intel P530 is rated at 15 W TDP, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is rated at 75 W TDP, a fivefold difference.

Q: Do both GPUs support Vulkan?

A: Yes, but with different versions, the Intel P530 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro K3000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel HD Graphics P530 wins in compute-oriented synthetic benchmarks, as demonstrated by its 7.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and its higher average score of 4560 versus 4241. It also holds advantages in API modernity, supporting DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, which are newer versions than the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The P530’s FP16 capability at 768.0 GFLOPS is a feature the Quadro lacks entirely, making it better suited for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic. Its 15 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient, and its integrated nature means no additional power connectors or cooling are required beyond what the host laptop provides.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins in traditional graphics throughput metrics. Its pixel rate of 7.848 GPixel/s is more than double the P530’s 3.000 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 31.39 GTexel/s nearly doubles the Intel’s 16.00 GTexel/s. The Quadro’s 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth provides a memory subsystem that the P530 cannot match with system-shared memory. Its 576 shading units and 32 ROPs give it raw hardware resources that are three to ten times larger than the Intel part. For applications that are rasterization-bound, memory-bandwidth-sensitive, or require consistent performance without competing with the CPU for system memory, the Quadro K3000M is the stronger candidate based on these specifications. The data does not show the Quadro winning any benchmark, but its architectural strengths in fill-rate and memory suggest it would excel in scenarios that the available Geekbench OpenCL test does not measure.