Intel UHD Graphics 730 vs NVIDIA Quadro K620 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data separates these two clearly. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 is the faster GPU overall, winning both recorded head-to-head tests. Its average benchmark score of 6282 places it in the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 averages 5929 and sits in the 33rd percentile. That is a narrow overall gap, but the individual results tell a more defined story.

The Quadro K620 leads by 11.8% in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 6693 against 5988. In the Vulkan test, both cards return an identical score of 5870, so the Intel part is not without merit. For users who need maximum compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, the Quadro is the clear choice. For those who simply need basic graphics output and are already on a platform with the Intel IGP, the UHD 730 is adequate, but the data does not show it beating the Quadro in any recorded test.

The verdict is straightforward: pick the Quadro K620 if you need the higher raw compute performance and can accommodate a discrete card. Pick the Intel UHD Graphics 730 if you have no expansion slot available, or if the system already includes it and the workload is light. The Quadro wins 2 benchmarks to 0, but the Vulkan tie means the Intel part is not entirely outclassed.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies and manufacturing backgrounds. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 uses the GM107 chip, built on the Maxwell architecture. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process and packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 uses a Rocket Lake chip, based on Generation 12.1 architecture. It is made by Intel on a 14 nm+++ process. Intel does not list transistor count, die size, or transistor density for this part in the database.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Quadro K620 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128 bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 uses system shared memory, with a system dependent bandwidth figure. This means the Intel part competes with the CPU for memory access, while the Quadro has its own dedicated pool.

Compute resources also differ. The Quadro K620 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 has 192 shading units, 12 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These are exactly half the counts of the Quadro in each category. The clock speeds partially compensate: the Quadro runs at 1058 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, while the Intel part runs at 300 MHz base and 1300 MHz boost. The higher Intel boost clock narrows the throughput gap, but does not eliminate it.

The result is visible in the rate figures. The Quadro K620 achieves 17.98 GPixel/s pixel rate and 26.98 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 10.40 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s for the Intel part. In FP32 compute, the Quadro delivers 863.2 GFLOPS, while the Intel UHD 730 delivers 499.2 GFLOPS. The Intel part does support FP16 at 998.4 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, which the Quadro does not list. Power consumption also differs: the Quadro is rated at 45 W TDP, while the Intel IGP is rated at 15 W.

The Quadro is a single-slot card, 160 mm long and 69 mm high, with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W. It connects via PCIe 2.0 x16 and offers 1x DVI and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Intel part is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface and motherboard dependent display outputs. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, though the Intel part supports DirectX 12_1 while the Quadro supports 11_0. The Quadro was released on July 21, 2014, and the Intel UHD 730 on March 29, 2021. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded benchmark tests show one clear victory and one exact tie. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K620 scores 6693 against the Intel UHD Graphics 730's 5988. That is an 11.8% lead for the Quadro. This is the larger margin in the comparison, and it reflects the Quadro's higher FP32 throughput and dedicated memory bandwidth.

In Geekbench Vulkan, both GPUs score exactly 5870. The database records the winner as the NVIDIA Quadro K620 with a delta of 0%, which is effectively a tie. This result is interesting because the Intel part has a higher boost clock (1300 MHz versus 1124 MHz) and supports DirectX 12_1, which may help in API-level efficiency. The identical score suggests that for Vulkan workloads, the two architectures perform at parity, perhaps due to driver optimization or workload characteristics that favor the Intel design's newer generation features.

The average benchmark score confirms the OpenCL advantage. The Quadro K620 averages 6282 across both tests, while the Intel UHD 730 averages 5929. The difference is 353 points, or roughly 6%. This is smaller than the OpenCL delta because the Vulkan tie pulls the averages closer.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides context. The Quadro K620's closest competitors are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER with an average score of 6270 (0.2% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 also at 6270 (0.2% delta), the AMD Radeon R7 M350 at 6327 (-0.7% delta), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at 6330 (-0.8% delta). The Intel UHD 730's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5955 (-0.4% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K620M at 5957 (-0.5% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8750M at 5970 (-0.7% delta), and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (-0.9% delta). This places the Intel part in the company of older mobile and mid-range discrete GPUs, while the desktop Quadro sits near much more modern cards in average score, despite the age difference.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K620 averages 6282, while the Intel UHD Graphics 730 averages 5929. The Quadro leads by 353 points.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: Both score exactly 5870, resulting in a 0% delta. The database records the Quadro as the winner, but the scores are identical.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro K620 has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 128 bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth, meaning it shares system RAM with the CPU.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K620 has 384 shading units, double the Intel UHD Graphics 730's 192 shading units. The Quadro also has 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs versus 12 TMUs and 8 ROPs for the Intel part.

Q: What power draw does each GPU have?

A: The Quadro K620 has a 45 W TDP and requires a 200 W suggested PSU. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP, so it draws power through the motherboard.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro K620 was released on July 21, 2014, and the Intel UHD Graphics 730 on March 29, 2021.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K620 wins in raw compute performance. Its FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS is 73% higher than the Intel part's 499.2 GFLOPS. The pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s and texture rate of 26.98 GTexel/s also exceed the Intel figures of 10.40 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s. The OpenCL benchmark result of 6693 versus 5988 confirms this advantage in compute-heavy tasks. For users running OpenCL-based applications, such as certain professional workloads or compute acceleration, the Quadro is the better choice.

The Intel UHD Graphics 730 wins in efficiency and integration. Its 15 W TDP is one third of the Quadro's 45 W, and it requires no expansion slot, no power connectors, and no additional cooling. The Vulkan benchmark tie at 5870 shows that for Vulkan-based workloads, the Intel part matches the Quadro despite having half the shading units, lower FP32, and shared memory. This suggests that the newer architecture (Generation 12.1 versus Maxwell) and higher boost clock (1300 MHz versus 1124 MHz) compensate for the hardware deficit in API-specific workloads.

The Intel part also has a FP16 capability at 998.4 GFLOPS, which the Quadro does not list. This could be relevant for workloads that use half-precision math, though the database does not provide a direct benchmark for this. The DirectX 12_1 support on the Intel part versus 11_0 on the Quadro may also matter for certain modern graphics features, though no benchmark in the database isolates this.

For use-case selection, the data supports the following split. Choose the Quadro K620 for compute-heavy tasks, OpenCL acceleration, or any workload that benefits from dedicated VRAM and higher FP32 rates. It also wins the overall benchmark count 2 to 0. Choose the Intel UHD Graphics 730 for basic desktop graphics, video output, or light Vulkan workloads where the 15 W power draw and zero add-in card requirements matter more than peak performance. The Vulkan tie makes the Intel part viable for that specific API, and its motherboard dependent outputs mean it works in any system with the appropriate ports.

The percentile rankings also inform the choice. The Quadro K620 sits at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the Intel UHD 730 sits at the 33rd. Neither is a high-end part, but the Quadro ranks slightly higher. The nearest rival data reinforces this: the Quadro's rivals include modern RTX cards within 0.2%, while the Intel part's rivals are older discrete mobile GPUs within 0.9%. This means the Quadro, despite being older, holds its own against much newer hardware in average score, while the Intel IGP aligns with older mid-range parts. The final decision depends on whether the system can accommodate a discrete card and whether the workload justifies the extra 30 W of power draw.