Intel UHD Graphics 730 vs NVIDIA GeForce 930A Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct head-to-head comparison between the Intel UHD Graphics 730 and the NVIDIA GeForce 930A, using the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this measurement, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 scored 5988 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930A scored 5317 points. That represents a 12.6% advantage for the Intel part, making it the clear winner in this particular workload.

The Intel UHD Graphics 730 also has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score of 5870, which is not directly compared against the NVIDIA part, as the GeForce 930A has no Vulkan result in the database. Still, the OpenCL result is the only apples-to-apples data point, and it favors Intel by a comfortable margin. The delta of 12.6% is not a trivial gap; it suggests that in raw compute-oriented tasks, the Intel integrated solution outperforms the discrete NVIDIA mobile chip.

Looking at the broader context, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 sits at the 33rd percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 5929 across its two recorded tests. The NVIDIA GeForce 930A, by contrast, sits at the 31st percentile with an average score of 5317. The percentile difference is small, just two points, but the average score difference of 612 points is meaningful. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 0.4% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957, 0.5% behind), the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, 0.7% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, 0.9% behind). The Intel UHD Graphics 730 essentially matches or slightly trails those parts, all of which cluster within 1% of each other.

The NVIDIA GeForce 930A's nearest rivals, meanwhile, include the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322, 0.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (5308, 0.2% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5284, 0.6% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358, 0.8% behind). The 930A is essentially in the middle of a tight pack, with all four rivals within 1% of its score. This suggests the 930A is a middling performer even within its own class, whereas the Intel part is at the top of its immediate peer group.

The win count in the head-to-head data is 1 for the Intel UHD Graphics 730 and 0 for the NVIDIA GeForce 930A. There is no multi-core or gaming benchmark in the head-to-head set, so the analysis rests on this single compute test. The data indicates that for general-purpose compute workloads, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 is the stronger option, despite being an integrated solution with no dedicated memory.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 730 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5988 versus 5317 for the NVIDIA GeForce 930A, a 12.6% advantage.

Q: How does the Intel UHD Graphics 730 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score is 5929. It trails the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5955) by 0.4%, the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5957) by 0.5%, the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970) by 0.7%, and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982) by 0.9%. All four rivals are within 1% of its score.

Q: How does the NVIDIA GeForce 930A compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score is 5317. It is 0.1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322), 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (5308), 0.6% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5284), and 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358).

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce 930A have a Vulkan benchmark score?

A: No. The database only records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5317 for the 930A. The Intel UHD Graphics 730, by contrast, has both an OpenCL score of 5988 and a Vulkan score of 5870.

Q: Which GPU has the higher pixel rate?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 730 has a pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s, which is higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 930A's 7.528 GPixel/s.

Q: Which GPU has the higher texture rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930A has a texture rate of 22.58 GTexel/s, which is higher than the Intel UHD Graphics 730's 15.60 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different design philosophies. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 is built on Rocket Lake silicon using Intel's Generation 12.1 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm+++ process at Intel's own foundry. The NVIDIA GeForce 930A, meanwhile, uses the GM108 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The process node difference is significant: Intel's 14 nm+++ is a mature, refined node, while TSMC's 28 nm is an older, larger geometry. This partly explains the power and efficiency differences between the two.

The NVIDIA part has a disclosed transistor count of 1,020 million on a die size of 77 mm², giving a transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel part does not have a recorded transistor count, die size, or density in the database, so a direct comparison on that front is not possible. What the data does show is that the NVIDIA chip is a small, low-power discrete GPU, while the Intel part is fully integrated into the processor package, with a slot width of "IGP" and a Ring Bus interface.

The shading units differ substantially. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 has 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The NVIDIA GeForce 930A has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The NVIDIA part has exactly double the shading units and double the TMUs, yet it still loses the OpenCL benchmark. This suggests that the Intel architecture's newer generation and higher clock behavior compensate for the raw unit count disadvantage.

Neither GPU features ray tracing cores or tensor cores, so both are limited to traditional rasterization and compute workloads. The API support is nearly identical: both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. However, the DirectX version differs in flavor: the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The 12_1 feature level includes additional features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer ordered views, which the 11_0 level does not guarantee. This is a meaningful architectural distinction, as it affects what games and applications can do on each GPU.

The clock behavior also tells a story. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 has a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930A has a base clock of 928 MHz and a boost clock of 941 MHz. The Intel part has a much wider clock range, with a boost that is over 1 GHz higher than its base, whereas the NVIDIA part has a narrow range of just 13 MHz between base and boost. This suggests the Intel part is designed to scale aggressively under load, while the NVIDIA part runs closer to a fixed clock.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs diverge on nearly every measurable field. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 uses system shared memory, with a memory type of "System Shared" and a bus width of "System Shared." Its memory bandwidth is listed as "System Dependent." The NVIDIA GeForce 930A, by contrast, has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 16.02 GB/s. The NVIDIA part's memory clock is 1001 MHz, with a 2 Gbps effective data rate. The Intel part has no dedicated memory, relying entirely on the host system's RAM, which means its performance is tied to the platform it is installed in.

The power envelopes are very different. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930A has a TDP of 33 W. Despite using more than twice the power, the NVIDIA part still trails in the OpenCL benchmark. This is a notable efficiency result for the Intel architecture. The slot width for both is listed as "IGP," meaning neither is a discrete card that occupies a standard expansion slot. The Intel part has no power connectors listed, and the NVIDIA part also has no power connectors, with a bus interface of PCIe 3.0 x8 for the NVIDIA part versus Ring Bus for the Intel part.

The display outputs differ as well: the Intel UHD Graphics 730's outputs are "Motherboard Dependent," while the NVIDIA GeForce 930A's are "Portable Device Dependent." This reflects their intended usage contexts: the Intel part is a desktop integrated GPU whose outputs depend on the motherboard, while the NVIDIA part is a mobile chip whose outputs depend on the laptop or portable device it is embedded in.

The release dates are far apart. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 was released on 2021-03-29, while the NVIDIA GeForce 930A was released on 2015-03-12. That is a gap of roughly six years, which explains the architectural generation differences. The NVIDIA part has a predecessor listed as the GeForce 800A, while the Intel part has no predecessor or successor recorded. Both are marked as end-of-life production status, so neither is currently being manufactured.

The FP32 compute figures also differ. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 delivers 499.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and 998.4 GFLOPS of FP16 performance (at a 2:1 ratio). The NVIDIA GeForce 930A delivers 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 and has no recorded FP16 figure. Despite the NVIDIA part having higher raw FP32 throughput on paper, the Intel part wins the actual OpenCL test, suggesting that real-world performance does not always follow theoretical peak numbers.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to the Intel UHD Graphics 730 as the stronger performer in compute workloads. Its OpenCL score of 5988 versus the NVIDIA GeForce 930A's 5317 gives it a 12.6% lead, and its Vulkan score of 5870 adds another data point in its favor. The Intel part also operates at a much lower TDP of 15 W versus 33 W, which is a substantial efficiency advantage. For anyone choosing between these two for general-purpose compute or API-level compatibility, the Intel part is the better option.

The NVIDIA GeForce 930A, on the other hand, has higher raw FP32 throughput at 722.7 GFLOPS and double the shading units (384 versus 192), and it has dedicated memory: 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. In scenarios where dedicated memory bandwidth matters more than raw compute, the NVIDIA part's 16.02 GB/s is fixed and consistent, whereas the Intel part's bandwidth is system dependent. The NVIDIA part also has a higher texture rate at 22.58 GTexel/s, which could make it better suited for texture-heavy workloads.

The percentile rankings are close, 33rd for the Intel part and 31st for the NVIDIA part, but the Intel part's average score of 5929 versus 5317 shows a clear gap. The data does not support the NVIDIA part as a winner in any direct head-to-head measurement, as the win count is 1 for Intel and 0 for NVIDIA.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics 730 wins in compute performance. The OpenCL benchmark is the only direct comparison, and the Intel part takes it by 12.6%. It also has a Vulkan score of 5870, which the NVIDIA part cannot match because it has no Vulkan result recorded. The Intel part also wins on power efficiency, with a 15 W TDP versus 33 W for the NVIDIA part, and on pixel rate, 10.40 GPixel/s versus 7.528 GPixel/s. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) support is a higher feature level than the NVIDIA part's DirectX 12 (11_0), which could matter for certain modern titles.

The NVIDIA GeForce 930A wins on raw parallel throughput in theory. It has 384 shading units versus 192, and 24 TMUs versus 12. Its FP32 compute is 722.7 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS. It also has dedicated memory: 2 GB of DDR3 with 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Intel part relies on system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth. The texture rate is higher at 22.58 GTexel/s versus 15.60 GTexel/s. For workloads that are heavily texture-bound or that benefit from a dedicated memory pool, the NVIDIA part could potentially outperform its OpenCL score suggests.

The release date difference is also worth noting. The Intel part is from 2021, while the NVIDIA part is from 2015. The Intel part's newer architecture and process node (14 nm+++ versus 28 nm) likely explain why it achieves higher performance at lower power. The NVIDIA part's GM108 chip and Maxwell architecture are older designs, and its nearest rivals include the GeForce 840M and GeForce 940M, all of which score within 1% of the 930A. The Intel part's nearest rivals, meanwhile, include the Quadro K4000 and Radeon HD 8750M, all within 1% of the Intel score. The data suggests the Intel part is a more modern, more efficient solution that wins the only recorded benchmark, while the NVIDIA part remains a viable fallback for scenarios requiring dedicated memory and higher theoretical texture throughput.