GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and Intel HD Graphics P530 occupy opposite ends of the mobile graphics spectrum, yet both shipped in the same 2015 era. The data shows a decisive performance gap between the discrete workstation GPU and the integrated processor graphics solution. In the only two head-to-head benchmark tests available, the Quadro M3000M dominates completely, winning both contests with staggering margins that reflect their fundamentally different design goals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 against the Intel HD Graphics P530’s 4,549, a delta of 265.9%. That is not a marginal victory; it is a 3.66x performance difference in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan test tells the same story: the Quadro scores 16,668 versus 4,571 for Intel, a 264.6% advantage. Both deltas exceed 260%, meaning the discrete NVIDIA part is roughly 3.6 times faster in each API workload.

These numbers place the Quadro M3000M in a different performance tier entirely. Its average benchmark score of 4,621 across all tests sits just 0.1% below the GeForce GTX 970M (4,628) and 0.8% above both the Radeon R5 M320 and Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (both 4,657). The Intel HD Graphics P530, by contrast, averages 4,560, which is 1.3% below the Quadro M3000M itself and 0.2% below the Radeon RX 560 (4,569). Interestingly, the P530’s nearest rival list includes the Quadro M3000M, with a deltaPct of -1.3%, meaning even the integrated Intel part is within striking distance of the Quadro in the overall average, despite losing so badly in the two compute-heavy tests.

The wins column reads 2 for the Quadro, 0 for the Intel. However, the average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story: the Quadro’s 4,621 average is only 1.3% higher than the Intel’s 4,560. This apparent contradiction resolves when examining the full benchmark suite. The Quadro has nine benchmark entries, including PassMark tests where it scores 5,543 in G3D and 2,139 in GPU compute, while the Intel part only has the two Geekbench entries. The Intel’s average is thus computed from a smaller, compute-focused sample, which flatters its overall standing relative to its actual gaming or graphics performance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two chips is vast. The Quadro M3000M uses NVIDIA’s GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture at TSMC’s 28 nm process. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Intel HD Graphics P530 uses Skylake GT2, based on Intel’s Generation 9.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm+ process at Intel’s own fabs. Its die size is just 123 mm², and while the transistor count is not listed in the data, the smaller process node and integrated nature are clear.

The compute resources differ by an order of magnitude. The Quadro fields 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The Intel part has 192 shading units, 16 TMUs, and only 3 ROPs. This 5.3x difference in shader count and 4x difference in TMUs explains the massive compute gap. Clock speeds tell a different story: the Quadro runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost, while the Intel part clocks at 350 MHz base and 1,000 MHz boost. Intel’s boost clock is actually higher, but with far fewer execution units, it cannot compensate.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Quadro has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses System Shared memory, with system-dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM. The Quadro’s memory is clocked at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the Intel’s memory clock is listed as “System Shared,” meaning it depends entirely on the host system’s RAM. The pixel rate tells the story: 29.57 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 3.000 GPixel/s for Intel, a 9.9x difference. Texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 16.00 GTexel/s, a 3.7x gap. FP32 compute is 1.892 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS, a 4.9x difference. The Intel part does list FP16 performance at 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1 rate), which the Quadro does not specify.

Power consumption is equally divergent. The Quadro is rated at 75 W TDP and uses an MXM module slot width with no power connectors, meaning it draws power through the module interface. The Intel part is an IGP at 15 W TDP, integrated into the processor package with a Ring Bus interface. The process node advantage (14 nm+ versus 28 nm) helps Intel achieve this 5x power reduction, but the performance penalty is severe.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the far more capable graphics processor. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by over 260%, has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory versus shared system memory, and offers 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 compute against 384.0 GFLOPS. For any workload that stresses the GPU, 3D rendering, scientific compute, CAD, video encoding, the Quadro M3000M is the only rational choice between these two.

However, the Intel HD Graphics P530 is not without merit. Its 15 W TDP is one-fifth of the Quadro’s 75 W, making it suitable for ultra-portable and low-power devices where battery life trumps performance. Its 14 nm+ process node is more modern, and its boost clock of 1,000 MHz is higher than the Quadro’s 924 MHz. The Intel part also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Intel part’s Vulkan 1.3 versus the Quadro’s Vulkan 1.4 is a minor API version difference, but both are modern.

The percentile rankings are close: the Quadro sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, the Intel at the 26th. This suggests that in the broader GPU landscape, both are near the bottom, but the Quadro’s compute-heavy benchmark profile pulls its percentile slightly higher. The average benchmark scores differ by only 1.3% in favor of the Quadro, but that average masks the Quadro’s dominance in the tests that matter for professional workloads.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification:

• Process Node: 28 nm (TSMC) versus 14 nm+ (Intel)
• Die Size: 398 mm² versus 123 mm²
• Transistors: 5,200 million versus not listed
• Base Clock: 823 MHz versus 350 MHz
• Boost Clock: 924 MHz versus 1,000 MHz
• Memory: 4 GB GDDR5 on 256-bit bus versus System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 160.4 GB/s versus System Dependent
• Shading Units: 1,024 versus 192
• TMUs: 64 versus 16
• ROPs: 32 versus 3
• Pixel Rate: 29.57 GPixel/s versus 3.000 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 59.14 GTexel/s versus 16.00 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1.892 TFLOPS versus 384.0 GFLOPS
• FP16: not listed versus 768.0 GFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 75 W versus 15 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module versus IGP
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus Ring Bus
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 versus 1.3

The only specification where the Intel part wins outright is boost clock speed (1,000 MHz vs 924 MHz) and FP16 compute (768.0 GFLOPS listed versus none for NVIDIA). The Quadro has no listed FP16 performance, which may indicate it lacks dedicated FP16 throughput or the data was not collected.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins with a score of 16,646 against the Intel HD Graphics P530’s 4,549, a 265.9% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro in Vulkan?

A: The Quadro scores 16,668 versus 4,571 for the Intel part, a delta of 264.6%.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Quadro M3000M is rated at 75 W, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 is rated at 15 W, a 5x difference in power consumption.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1). They also both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Intel part supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each?

A: The Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses System Shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro has 1,024 shading units, while the Intel part has 192, a 5.3x difference.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins in every compute and graphics workload represented in the benchmark data. Its 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, 160.4 GB/s of dedicated memory bandwidth, and 29.57 GPixel/s pixel rate make it suitable for professional 3D applications, GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, and any task that requires sustained graphics throughput. The 4 GB of GDDR5 VRAM is small by modern standards, but it is vastly superior to shared system memory for texture-heavy workloads. The Quadro’s PassMark scores reinforce this: 5,543 in G3D and 2,139 in GPU compute indicate solid directX 9/10/11/12 performance, with its best showing in DirectX 9 (98) and worst in DirectX 12 (23).

The Intel HD Graphics P530 wins in power efficiency and integration. At 15 W, it consumes one-fifth the power of the Quadro, making it ideal for thin-and-light laptops where battery life is paramount. Its 14 nm+ process node and higher boost clock (1,000 MHz) suggest better frequency scaling for bursty, short-duration workloads. The FP16 capability (768.0 GFLOPS at 2:1 rate) is notable, as it may provide advantages in applications that can utilize half-precision arithmetic, though the data does not include FP16 benchmark results. The Intel part’s nearest rivals include the Radeon RX 560 (0.2% faster) and the Quadro M3000M (1.3% faster), indicating that in the limited Geekbench tests, the Intel integrated graphics performs closer to entry-level discrete GPUs than its 192 shading units might suggest.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. The Quadro M3000M is the clear choice for anyone running GPU-intensive professional applications or gaming. The Intel HD Graphics P530 is the choice for basic display output, video playback, and light 2D work in a power-constrained chassis. The data does not support using the Intel part for any demanding 3D workload, as its 3.000 GPixel/s pixel rate and 384.0 GFLOPS FP32 are simply too low. Conversely, the Quadro’s 75 W TDP and MXM module form factor preclude its use in ultraportable designs. Both parts are end-of-life, but the benchmark data provides a clear historical record of their relative capabilities.