Intel UHD Graphics P630 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 records an average benchmark score of 5370, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 records 4893. The Intel part sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs in the database, compared to the 28th percentile for the NVIDIA part.

Q: How do the two compare in the only shared benchmark test?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111 versus 4893 for the GeForce GTS 450. That is a 4.5% advantage for the Intel solution.

Q: What memory configurations do these cards use?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the power requirements of each?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a 15 W TDP and is an integrated graphics processor with a Ring Bus interface. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 has a 106 W TDP, uses a dual-slot cooler, requires one 6-pin power connector, and lists a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: What is the release timing for these products?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 launched on May 12, 2020, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 launched on September 12, 2010. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan entry recorded.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the stronger pick for anyone looking at raw compute performance. It wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by 4.5% (5111 versus 4893), holds a higher average benchmark score (5370 versus 4893), and sits three percentile points higher in the global GPU distribution. It also brings a more modern feature set, including Vulkan 1.3 support and DirectX 12 (12_1), both absent or limited on the older NVIDIA card.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, despite being a discrete card with dedicated GDDR5 memory and a much higher power envelope, cannot overtake the Intel integrated solution in the single recorded head-to-head test. Its 106 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU stand in sharp contrast to the Intel part's 15 W TDP, making the GTS 450 far more demanding for no measurable performance benefit in this comparison. The data shows no scenario where the GTS 450 wins a benchmark against the P630.

For buyers, the choice is clear: the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the better performer with lower power draw and newer API support. The GTS 450 would only be relevant in a legacy system requiring a discrete PCIe card, but even then, benchmark results indicate it is slower in OpenCL. The Intel part is the recommended option based on the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893. The Intel part wins by 4.5%. That delta is modest but consistent across the broader benchmark averages: the Intel GPU's average score of 5370 is 9.7% higher than the GTS 450's 4893 average.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card helps contextualize these numbers. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 sits within 1% of several comparable GPUs: it is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358), 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322), and 1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317). It trails the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416) by 0.8%. In other words, the P630 lands in a tightly packed cluster of mobile and integrated-class parts.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, by contrast, also sits in a tight cluster but at a lower absolute level. It is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901) and 0.2% behind the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904), while it runs 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867) and 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929). The GTS 450's nearest rivals include a modern high-end card, but the delta is negligible, meaning the old Fermi part still lands near that performance point in OpenCL.

When comparing the two directly, the 4.5% OpenCL edge for the Intel part is the only head-to-head measurement, but it aligns with the broader percentile ranking: 31 versus 28. The benchmark results indicate the Intel integrated GPU is the faster part, albeit by a single-digit margin.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification field. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is built on a 14 nm+++ process at Intel's foundry, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 uses a 40 nm process at TSMC. The GTS 450 has a known transistor count of 1,170 million and a die size of 238 mm², giving a transistor density of 4.9M per mm²; no transistor or die data is recorded for the Intel part.

Clock behavior differs fundamentally. The Intel GPU has a base clock of 350 MHz and a boost clock of 1200 MHz. The GTS 450 has no base or boost clock recorded, only a memory clock of 902 MHz, listed as 3.6 Gbps effective. Memory configuration is also starkly different: the Intel part uses system-shared memory and system-shared bus width with system-dependent bandwidth, whereas the GTS 450 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth.

Compute resources are similar in shading units, with both at 192, but diverge elsewhere. The Intel part has 24 texture mapping units and 3 ROPs, while the GTS 450 has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate favors the GTS 450 at 6.264 GPixel/s versus 3.600 GPixel/s for the Intel part. Texture rate favors the Intel part at 28.80 GTexel/s versus 25.06 GTexel/s. FP32 compute favors the GTS 450 at 601.3 GFLOPS versus 460.8 GFLOPS. The Intel part also lists FP16 at 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1), while the GTS 450 has no FP16 entry.

Power and physical design differ sharply. The Intel part has a 15 W TDP and is an IGP with a Ring Bus interface, while the GTS 450 has a 106 W TDP, is dual-slot, uses a 6-pin connector, suggests a 300 W PSU, and runs on PCIe 2.0 x16. The GTS 450 measures 210 mm by 111 mm; the Intel part has no recorded dimensions. Display outputs are motherboard-dependent for the Intel part, while the GTS 450 provides 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a. The GTS 450 also has a recorded launch MSRP of 129 USD.

Architecture Differences

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is based on the Comet Lake GT2 chip using Generation 9.5 architecture, specifically the HD Graphics-W (Comet Lake) generation. It is built on Intel's 14 nm+++ process. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 uses the GF106 chip with Fermi architecture, part of the GeForce 400 generation, fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process. The GTS 450's predecessor is the GeForce 200 series and its successor is the GeForce 500 series; no predecessor or successor is recorded for the Intel part.

API support is a major architectural differentiator. The Intel part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTS 450 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support recorded. That means the Intel GPU can run modern Vulkan titles, while the GTS 450 cannot, at least based on the recorded data.

Memory architecture is also distinct. The Intel part relies entirely on system-shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is system-dependent and its memory clock is listed simply as "System Shared." The GTS 450 uses dedicated GDDR5 memory with a fixed 57.73 GB/s bandwidth and a 128-bit bus. This gives the discrete card a memory bandwidth advantage, but it does not translate into a benchmark win in the recorded OpenCL test.

The compute layout shows both cards have 192 shading units, but the distribution of other resources differs. The Intel part has fewer TMUs (24 versus 32) and far fewer ROPs (3 versus 16). The GTS 450 also has a higher pixel rate (6.264 GPixel/s versus 3.600 GPixel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (601.3 GFLOPS versus 460.8 GFLOPS). However, the Intel part has a higher texture rate (28.80 GTexel/s versus 25.06 GTexel/s) and adds FP16 capability at 921.6 GFLOPS.

The power architecture is a stark contrast. The Intel part is integrated, draws 15 W, and needs no power connectors. The GTS 450 is a dual-slot discrete card drawing 106 W, requiring a 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The release dates also reflect the architectural gap: the Intel part launched on May 12, 2020, while the GTS 450 launched on September 12, 2010.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, with a 4.5% margin. It also wins on average benchmark score (5370 versus 4893) and global percentile ranking (31 versus 28). Its advantages extend to texture rate (28.80 GTexel/s versus 25.06 GTexel/s), FP16 compute (921.6 GFLOPS versus none recorded), API support (Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12_1 versus no Vulkan and DirectX 11_0), power efficiency (15 W versus 106 W), and a much newer release date (May 2020 versus September 2010). For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, modern API compatibility, or low power draw, the Intel part is the clear winner.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 wins no recorded benchmarks against the Intel part. However, it does hold advantages in specific specification fields. It has dedicated GDDR5 memory with 57.73 GB/s of bandwidth, which is not dependent on system memory. It has more TMUs (32 versus 24), more ROPs (16 versus 3), a higher pixel rate (6.264 GPixel/s versus 3.600 GPixel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (601.3 GFLOPS versus 460.8 GFLOPS). It also has a recorded launch MSRP of 129 USD, whereas the Intel part has no recorded price.

In practice, the GTS 450's theoretical pixel and FP32 advantages do not manifest in the recorded OpenCL benchmark, where it trails by 4.5%. The database shows the Intel part as the better overall performer. The GTS 450's dedicated memory and higher fill rates might matter in legacy scenarios, but no benchmark data supports that conclusion here. The use-case split is therefore lopsided: the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the pick for compute tasks, modern API support, and low-power systems, while the GTS 450 is only notable for having dedicated VRAM and a discrete PCIe form factor, without any recorded performance win to back it up.