Intel UHD Graphics P630 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Intel UHD Graphics P630 and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they represent vastly different eras and design philosophies. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark, with the Intel integrated solution edging out the older NVIDIA workstation card. However, the specifications and intended use cases diverge sharply, making a direct comparison more nuanced than a single score suggests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the integrated Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111 against the discrete NVIDIA Quadro 4000’s 4979. That is a 2.7% advantage for the Intel part, a narrow margin that falls within the range of run-to-run variance. In practical terms, the data indicates these two GPUs are effectively tied in raw compute throughput for this particular workload, despite their completely different architectures and power envelopes.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 achieves an average benchmark score of 5370 across all its tested workloads (including Geekbench Vulkan at 5628), placing it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are all low-end mobile or entry-level discrete parts: the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (avg 5358, 0.2% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (avg 5317, 1% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (avg 5322, 0.9% behind). This places the P630 firmly in the "capable for light tasks but not for gaming" tier.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000, with its single benchmark score of 4979, sits in the 29th percentile. Its nearest rivals are surprisingly modern: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (avg 4970, 0.2% behind) and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (avg 4998, 0.4% ahead). This is a striking data point — a 2010 workstation card matching a modern mid-range GPU in raw OpenCL throughput, though the RTX 5060 Ti’s feature set and driver optimizations are entirely different. The Quadro 4000’s performance is essentially at parity with the integrated Radeon R7 Graphics, which highlights how far integrated graphics have come.

The single head-to-head result shows the Intel part winning by 2.7%, but this is not a decisive victory. It suggests that for compute-heavy OpenCL tasks, the choice between these two is unlikely to be made on raw performance alone. The real differentiators lie elsewhere: in power consumption, memory architecture, and driver support.

Architecture Differences

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is built on the Generation 9.5 architecture (chip: Comet Lake GT2) using Intel’s 14 nm+++ process node. It is an integrated GPU (IGP) with a 15 W TDP, sharing system memory via the Ring Bus interface. The chip packs 192 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and just 3 render output units (ROPs). Its clock speeds are 350 MHz base and 1200 MHz boost, yielding a pixel rate of 3.600 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 28.80 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 460.8 GFLOPS. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is a completely different beast. It uses the Fermi architecture (chip: GF100) manufactured on TSMC’s 40 nm process, with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die — a massive chip by comparison. It is a discrete, single-slot card with a 142 W TDP, requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. It has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Memory is 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, running at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), providing 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. Its pixel rate is 7.600 GPixel/s, texture rate is 15.20 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 486.4 GFLOPS. The Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but notably lacks Vulkan support.

The architectural gulf is enormous. The Fermi chip is physically huge and power-hungry, yet the P630 matches it in FP32 throughput (460.8 vs 486.4 GFLOPS) while using less than a tenth of the power (15 W vs 142 W). The P630’s 14 nm+++ process allows for much higher efficiency. However, the Quadro 4000 has a massive advantage in memory bandwidth (89.86 GB/s vs system-dependent shared memory) and pixel fill rate (7.600 vs 3.600 GPixel/s), due to its dedicated GDDR5 and 32 ROPs versus the Intel chip’s 3 ROPs.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins in efficiency and modern API support. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops or low-power desktops where battery life and thermals are critical. The support for Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1) means it can run newer applications and games that require these APIs, albeit at low settings. The data shows its Geekbench OpenCL score (5111) and Vulkan score (5628) are both respectable for an iGPU, and it sits close to dedicated entry-level parts like the GeForce 840M. For office work, video playback, and light productivity, the P630 is more than sufficient.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins in memory bandwidth, pixel throughput, and raw rasterization capabilities. Its 89.86 GB/s of dedicated GDDR5 bandwidth is over 20 times what a typical system-shared configuration might provide, and its 32 ROPs give it a 2.1x advantage in pixel fill rate over the P630. This makes it better suited for tasks that involve heavy texture mapping, multi-display setups, or older workstation applications that rely on OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro 4000’s 486.4 GFLOPS FP32 output is also slightly higher than the P630’s 460.8 GFLOPS, though the margin is negligible.

The percentile data reinforces this split. The P630 (31st percentile) is surrounded by other low-power mobile parts, indicating it is a jack-of-all-trades for basic computing. The Quadro 4000 (29th percentile) is surrounded by modern parts like the RTX 5060 Ti and Radeon R7 Graphics, which suggests its compute capability is still relevant, but its lack of modern features (no Vulkan, older DirectX) limits its usability in contemporary software.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification:

• Process Node: Intel 14 nm+++ vs TSMC 40 nm
• Transistors: N/A vs 3,100 million
• Die Size: N/A vs 529 mm²
• Clocks: 350 MHz base / 1200 MHz boost vs no base/boost listed (memory at 702 MHz)
• Memory: System Shared vs 2 GB GDDR5
• Memory Bus: System Shared vs 256 bit
• Bandwidth: System Dependent vs 89.86 GB/s
• Shading Units: 192 vs 256
• TMUs: 24 vs 32
• ROPs: 3 vs 32
• Pixel Rate: 3.600 GPixel/s vs 7.600 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 28.80 GTexel/s vs 15.20 GTexel/s
• FP32: 460.8 GFLOPS vs 486.4 GFLOPS
• FP16: 921.6 GFLOPS (2:1) vs N/A
• TDP: 15 W vs 142 W
• Slot Width: IGP vs Single-slot
• Power Connectors: N/A vs 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: N/A vs 300 W
• Bus Interface: Ring Bus vs PCIe 2.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Motherboard Dependent vs 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort
• DirectX: 12 (12_1) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan: 1.3 vs N/A
• Dimensions: N/A vs 241 mm (9.5 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height, 20 mm (0.8 inches) width
• Release Date: 2020-05-12 vs 2010-11-01
• Predecessor/Successor: N/A vs Quadro FX Tesla / Quadro Kepler

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5111 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 2.7% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000’s 4979. The margin is small enough to be considered a statistical tie.

Q: Can the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 run modern games that require Vulkan?

A: No. The Quadro 4000 does not support Vulkan, while the Intel UHD Graphics P630 supports Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro 4000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The P630’s average score of 5370 puts it 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M445 and 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 840M. The Quadro 4000’s average of 4979 is 0.2% ahead of the RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB and 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 has a TDP of 15 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires a 300 W suggested PSU and a 1x 6-pin power connector.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 4000 has 89.86 GB/s of dedicated GDDR5 bandwidth on a 256-bit bus. The P630 uses system shared memory, making its bandwidth system-dependent and generally far lower.

Q: What is the release date gap between these two?

A: The P630 was released on 2020-05-12, while the Quadro 4000 was released on 2010-11-01, a gap of nearly a decade.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel UHD Graphics P630 is the more practical choice for modern, low-power systems. It matches the Quadro 4000 in compute performance (5111 vs 4979 OpenCL), uses a fraction of the power (15 W vs 142 W), supports Vulkan 1.3, and was released a decade later. For anyone building a light, quiet, power-efficient machine for office work, media playback, or light gaming, the P630 is the obvious pick.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 should only be considered if you specifically need its strengths: 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth, a 2.1x higher pixel fill rate (7.600 vs 3.600 GPixel/s), and a legacy workstation feature set with 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs. Its 32 ROPs make it better for tasks that stress rasterization, and its 486.4 GFLOPS FP32 output is slightly higher than the P630’s. However, its lack of Vulkan support and older DirectX version (11_0) mean it is locked out of much contemporary software.

In short: if you are choosing between these two today, the Intel UHD Graphics P630 wins on efficiency, API support, and overall usability. The Quadro 4000 is a relic that only makes sense for vintage workstation builds or niche applications that rely on its specific bandwidth and rasterization characteristics. The benchmark data shows they are peers in raw compute, but the P630 is the one you can actually use in a modern system.