Intel HD Graphics P530 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data pits the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M against the Intel HD Graphics P530 in two cross-API compute tests, and the results show a consistent, decisive advantage for the discrete NVIDIA part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K3100M scores 6,154 against Intel's 4,549, a gap of 35.3 percent. That is a substantial margin, placing the NVIDIA solution in a different performance class for general-purpose GPU compute workloads that rely on OpenCL.

The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a narrower spread. The Quadro K3100M posts 5,484, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 manages 4,571. The delta here is 20 percent in NVIDIA's favor. Vulkan is a modern, low-overhead API, and the fact that Intel's integrated part closes some of the distance in this test suggests its architecture handles the API's command processing relatively efficiently, but it still trails by a wide enough margin to be decisive.

Across the two head-to-head benchmarks, the Quadro K3100M wins both, recording a 2-0 sweep. The average benchmark score from the broader database reinforces this hierarchy: the Quadro K3100M sits at 5,154, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 averages 4,560. That is roughly an 11 percent gap in aggregate performance, consistent with the individual test results.

Context from the nearest rivals helps frame these numbers. The Quadro K3100M's average score of 5,154 places it within 0.1 percent of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5,161) and 1.1 percent behind the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5,211). It edges out the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5,063) by 1.8 percent. Meanwhile, the Intel HD Graphics P530's 4,560 average puts it 0.2 percent behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4,569) and 0.4 percent behind the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4,577). It beats the AMD FirePro W4190M (4,505) by 1.2 percent. So while the Intel part is competitive with low-end discrete mobile GPUs from a few generations back, it is not in the same bracket as the Quadro K3100M, which trades blows with a higher tier of mobile discrete graphics.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Quadro K3100M is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 294 mm² and packs 3,540 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. It is a professional mobile graphics module, using an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, and it was released in July 2013, belonging to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation.

The Intel HD Graphics P530, by contrast, is an integrated graphics processor built on the Skylake GT2 chip, using Intel's Generation 9.0 architecture. It is manufactured on a 14 nm+ process at Intel, with a much smaller die of 123 mm². The database does not list a transistor count for this part, but the smaller die and integrated nature are clear. It connects via the Ring Bus and was released in August 2015, belonging to the HD Graphics-W (Skylake) generation.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The Quadro K3100M carries 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses System Shared memory, with a bus width and bandwidth that are System Dependent. This means the Intel GPU's memory performance relies entirely on the host system's RAM and memory subsystem, which introduces variability and typically much lower bandwidth than a dedicated GDDR5 solution.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro K3100M operates at a fixed 706 MHz base and boost, with memory clocked at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The Intel HD Graphics P530 has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1,000 MHz. The higher boost clock on Intel helps it reach the performance levels it does, but the underlying execution resources are far smaller.

Raw throughput figures make the gap explicit. The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. It achieves 11.30 GPixel/s pixel rate and 45.18 GTexel/s texture rate, with FP32 performance of 1,084.4 GFLOPS. The Intel part has 192 shading units, 16 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 3.000 GPixel/s and texture rate is 16.00 GTexel/s, with FP32 at 384.0 GFLOPS and FP16 at 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1). The Quadro K3100M has no FP16 support listed, while Intel offers it, but in FP32, the NVIDIA chip is nearly three times faster.

Power and packaging also differ fundamentally. The Quadro K3100M is rated at 75 W TDP and comes as an MXM module, meaning it is a replaceable, discrete graphics card for laptops. The Intel HD Graphics P530 is rated at 15 W TDP and is an IGP, integrated directly into the processor package. That 5x TDP difference reflects the performance disparity but also the design intent: one is for dedicated graphics workloads, the other for power-efficient integration.

API support shows a notable reversal. The Quadro K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Intel HD Graphics P530 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. Intel's part has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, which is expected given its later release date and newer architecture generation.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K3100M wins decisively in raw compute performance. In both head-to-head benchmarks, it leads by double-digit margins, and its FP32 throughput of 1,084.4 GFLOPS dwarfs Intel's 384.0 GFLOPS. Any workload that is shader-bound or compute-heavy, such as GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, or OpenCL-based image processing, will favor the NVIDIA part. The dedicated 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth also gives it a clear edge in texture-heavy 3D workloads or tasks that require large working sets, since the Intel part must share system memory.

The Intel HD Graphics P530 wins in power efficiency and integration. At 15 W TDP versus 75 W, it consumes a fraction of the power. It is an IGP, meaning it requires no separate module, no dedicated memory, and no extra cooling beyond what the CPU already needs. For systems where battery life, thermal envelope, or physical space are the primary constraints, the Intel part is the only viable choice between the two. It also has a newer API feature set, with DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 support, which may be relevant for modern titles or applications that can leverage those newer features.

In terms of performance percentile, the Quadro K3100M ranks at the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 sits at the 26th percentile. The absolute difference in percentile is small, but the benchmark scores show the NVIDIA part is consistently faster. The Intel part's higher boost clock of 1,000 MHz helps it stay competitive in lighter workloads, but it cannot overcome the fundamental deficit in shading units, TMUs, and ROPs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has an average benchmark score of 5,154, which is higher than the Intel HD Graphics P530's 4,560.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro K3100M scores 6,154 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4,549, giving NVIDIA a 35.3 percent advantage.

Q: Does the Intel HD Graphics P530 support a newer DirectX version than the Quadro K3100M?

A: Yes. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Quadro K3100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

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

A: The Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel HD Graphics P530 uses System Shared memory, with bandwidth described as System Dependent.

Q: Which GPU has the higher TDP?

A: The Quadro K3100M is rated at 75 W, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 is rated at 15 W.

Q: How many shading units does each GPU have?

A: The Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 has 192.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in use cases. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the stronger GPU in every recorded benchmark. It wins both head-to-head tests, has a higher average score, and offers more than double the FP32 throughput. Any application that relies on GPU compute, 3D rendering, or dedicated graphics memory will perform better on this card. Its 4 GB GDDR5 frame buffer and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth make it suitable for professional workloads that require stable, high-bandwidth memory access.

The Intel HD Graphics P530 is the appropriate choice only when the constraints of power, space, and system integration outweigh raw performance. At 15 W TDP, it consumes one-fifth the power of the Quadro K3100M. As an IGP, it requires no separate module or dedicated memory, making it the obvious pick for thin-and-light laptops or low-power systems where a discrete GPU is not an option. Its newer API support, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3, gives it a forward-looking feature set that the older Kepler part lacks.

For a user who needs a mobile workstation GPU with strong compute performance, the Quadro K3100M is the clear winner from the recorded data. For a user who prioritizes battery life, thermal headroom, and simplicity, the Intel HD Graphics P530 serves that role, but it will not match the NVIDIA part in any performance metric measured here. The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Quadro K3100M wins 2-0, and the average score gap of roughly 11 percent confirms that this is not a close contest.