Intel UHD Graphics 730 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

Intel UHD Graphics 730 and NVIDIA Quadro M500M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they represent vastly different generations and design philosophies. The Intel part is an integrated GPU from the Rocket Lake era, while the NVIDIA chip is a discrete Maxwell-based mobile workstation GPU. Benchmark results show a narrow overall victory for the Intel solution, but the data reveals a more nuanced picture when examining individual workloads and architectural trade-offs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two GPUs is surprisingly close in one major test and decisively one-sided in the other. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 scores 5,988, while the Quadro M500M trails by a hair at 5,986 — a delta of 0% that is effectively a tie. This near-deadlock is remarkable given that the NVIDIA part has double the shading units and a higher thermal envelope. The Intel architecture clearly compensates for its resource disadvantage in this compute workload.

The Vulkan benchmark tells a different story. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 posts 5,870, which is 12.4% ahead of the Quadro M500M’s 5,222. This is a substantial margin and represents Intel’s decisive victory in the head-to-head. The modern Generation 12.1 architecture handles Vulkan’s explicit multi-threading and command buffer management more efficiently than the older Maxwell design.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the Intel part maintains its lead with a 5,929 average versus 5,604 for the NVIDIA GPU. This places the Intel UHD Graphics 730 in the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd percentile. Both are near the bottom of the overall performance distribution, but the Intel part’s edge is consistent across both metrics tested.

The nearest rival data provides additional context. The Intel GPU’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5,955, which is only 0.4% behind, followed by the NVIDIA Quadro K620M at 5,957 (0.5% behind). The Quadro M500M, meanwhile, beats the AMD FirePro M4000 by 1.2% but falls 1.5% short of the AMD Radeon HD 8790M. Neither GPU is a performance powerhouse in absolute terms, but the Intel part edges out the NVIDIA option in the majority of comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 is built on Intel’s Generation 12.1 architecture using a 14 nm+++ process node, with the chip being Rocket Lake. It features 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. Its base clock is 300 MHz with a boost of 1300 MHz, producing a pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 15.60 GTexel/s. Floating point performance is rated at 499.2 GFLOPS for FP32 and 998.4 GFLOPS for FP16 with a 2:1 ratio. The TDP is just 15 W, and it connects via a Ring Bus interface as an integrated graphics processor (IGP).

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M counters with the Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm process from TSMC. It uses the GM108S chip with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². It has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Clocks are significantly higher: 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. However, its pixel rate is lower at 8.992 GPixel/s, while texture rate is higher at 17.98 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 863.2 GFLOPS — roughly 73% higher than the Intel part — but there is no FP16 capability listed. The TDP is 30 W, double the Intel part, and it uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface as an MXM module.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The Intel GPU uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host system’s RAM speed. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M has dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. This dedicated memory is a significant advantage for the NVIDIA part in scenarios where system memory bandwidth is constrained.

API support shows parity in OpenGL (4.6 for both) and Vulkan (1.4 for both), but a difference in DirectX: the Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA part only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). This means the Intel GPU supports more advanced DirectX 12 features, which could matter for modern titles.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel UHD Graphics 730 is the better overall performer in this matchup. It wins both head-to-head benchmark tests — the OpenCL tie-breaking edge and the 12.4% Vulkan victory — and maintains a higher average benchmark score of 5,929 versus 5,604. Its newer architecture, lower power draw, and superior DirectX 12 feature set make it the more compelling option for general-purpose and modern API workloads.

However, the Quadro M500M is not without merit. Its dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable, isolated memory performance that the Intel part cannot guarantee. The NVIDIA GPU also delivers significantly higher FP32 throughput at 863.2 GFLOPS, which could benefit certain compute tasks that are not captured in the Geekbench tests. Its higher texture rate of 17.98 GTexel/s suggests better texturing throughput for some workloads.

For a builder deciding between these two, the choice depends on the use case. If the priority is maximum compatibility with modern APIs and lower power consumption, the Intel UHD Graphics 730 is the data-backed pick. If dedicated memory and raw FP32 compute are more important, the Quadro M500M holds a theoretical advantage, though the benchmark scores do not reflect a practical win for the NVIDIA part in the tested scenarios.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights where the two GPUs diverge in their specifications:

| Field | Intel UHD Graphics 730 | NVIDIA Quadro M500M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Generation 12.1 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 14 nm+++ | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 77 mm² |

| Base Clock | 300 MHz | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1300 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Shading Units | 192 | 384 |

| TMUs | 12 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.40 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 15.60 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 499.2 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 998.4 GFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 15 W | 30 W |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 14.40 GB/s |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | Ring Bus | MXM-A (3.0) |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Release Date | 2021-03-29 | 2016-04-26 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | Not listed | Quadro Pascal-M |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 730 scores 5,929 on average, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5,604. This gives the Intel part a 325-point advantage.

Q: How much faster is the Intel GPU in Vulkan performance?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 730 scores 5,870 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, which is 12.4% ahead of the Quadro M500M’s 5,222.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro M500M have more shading units?

A: Yes, the Quadro M500M has 384 shading units, exactly double the 192 shading units found in the Intel UHD Graphics 730.

Q: What is the power draw difference between these two GPUs?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 730 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M has a TDP of 30 W. The Intel part consumes half the power.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX version?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 730 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: Does either GPU have dedicated memory?

A: Only the NVIDIA Quadro M500M has dedicated memory: 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel UHD Graphics 730 uses system shared memory.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics 730 is the clear winner in Vulkan-based applications, with its 12.4% lead translating to a tangible advantage in games and workloads that leverage this modern API. Its DirectX 12 (12_1) support also means it can handle a wider range of advanced rendering features in newer titles. The lower 15 W TDP makes it a superior choice for power-constrained systems, as it draws half the power of the NVIDIA part. Its higher pixel rate of 10.40 GPixel/s suggests better fill-rate performance for resolution-bound scenarios.

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M holds advantages in raw compute throughput, with FP32 performance of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 499.2 GFLOPS for the Intel part. This could translate to better performance in compute-heavy applications that are not represented in the Geekbench suite. Its dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth ensures consistent memory performance regardless of the host system’s RAM configuration — a critical factor in systems with slow or shared system memory. The higher texture rate of 17.98 GTexel/s also indicates better texturing throughput for certain workloads. However, the benchmark data shows no scenario where the NVIDIA part actually wins in the tested metrics, so these theoretical advantages do not materialize into practical performance gains.