Intel UHD Graphics P630 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

# FAQ

Q: How do the benchmark scores of the Intel UHD Graphics P630 and NVIDIA Quadro 4000M compare?

A: The data shows a narrow margin. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro 4000M scores 5211, while the UHD P630 scores 5111. This gives the NVIDIA part a 1.9% advantage in that specific workload.

Q: Which GPU holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 sits at the 31st percentile, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is at the 30th percentile. Despite losing the head-to-head benchmark, the Intel part's average benchmark score (5370) is higher than the Quadro's (5211), which explains its slightly better percentile placement.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each product, and how does that relate to their nearest rivals?

A: The UHD P630 averages 5370 points, which places it 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358) and 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 840M (5322). The Quadro 4000M averages 5211, putting it 1.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154) and 1.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5284).

Q: What are the memory configurations of these two GPUs?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics P630 uses system-shared memory, with its type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as "System Shared" or "System Dependent." The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate, and what does that indicate?

A: The Quadro 4000M achieves a pixel rate of 6.650 GPixel/s, compared to 3.600 GPixel/s for the UHD P630. This indicates the NVIDIA part has a significantly higher fill-rate ceiling, which typically benefits rasterization-heavy tasks at high resolutions.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Quadro 4000M delivers 638.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, whereas the UHD P630 provides 460.8 GFLOPS. This translates to a 38.5% raw compute advantage for the NVIDIA part, though real-world application scaling varies.

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel UHD Graphics P630 and NVIDIA Quadro 4000M target different eras and different system constraints, and the benchmark data reflects that split. The UHD P630 wins on aggregate benchmark average: 5370 versus 5211 for the Quadro 4000M. That places Intel's integrated solution at the 31st percentile versus the 30th percentile for NVIDIA's mobile workstation part. In the single head-to-head benchmark available (Geekbench OpenCL), however, the Quadro 4000M takes the win with 5211 against 5111, a 1.9% margin.

Where each GPU wins is largely a function of system context. The UHD P630 is an IGP with a 15 W TDP, drawing power from the host CPU's thermal envelope. Its performance is "System Dependent" in terms of memory bandwidth, meaning it relies entirely on shared system memory. This makes it the natural choice for lightweight, power-constrained notebooks where dedicated graphics are absent, and where the 31st percentile ranking is achieved without any discrete memory overhead.

The Quadro 4000M, by contrast, is a 100 W MXM module with 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. That dedicated memory subsystem provides 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is fixed and independent of host RAM. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, that dedicated memory and higher shading-unit count (336 versus 192) yields the 1.9% victory. The Quadro also posts a significantly higher pixel rate (6.650 GPixel/s versus 3.600 GPixel/s) and texture rate (26.60 GTexel/s versus 28.80 GTexel/s is actually lower, but pixel rate strongly favors NVIDIA). For workloads sensitive to dedicated memory latency and fill-rate, the Quadro 4000M is the clear winner despite its older Fermi architecture.

The UHD P630 counters with a newer architecture (Generation 9.5 versus Fermi), a much smaller process node (14 nm+++ versus 40 nm), and Vulkan 1.3 API support, which the Quadro lacks entirely. The Intel part also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) versus DirectX 12 (11_0) on the Quadro. These feature-level advantages do not always translate to raw compute wins, but they matter for compatibility and efficiency in modern software stacks.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans eight years of design philosophy. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 is built on the Generation 9.5 architecture, specifically the Comet Lake GT2 chip, fabricated on Intel's 14 nm+++ process. It is an integrated graphics processor with a Ring Bus interface, meaning it shares the CPU's memory controller and has no independent VRAM. Its 192 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and only 3 ROPs reflect a design optimized for low power and basic display output, not high-throughput rasterization. The FP32 output is 460.8 GFLOPS, with FP16 supported at 921.6 GFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses the Fermi architecture, built around the GF104 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 40 nm process. It packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². Fermi was designed for compute-heavy workloads, and the Quadro 4000M reflects that with 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Its FP32 throughput is 638.4 GFLOPS, and it has no FP16 support, which is consistent with its 2011-era design goals. The chip is mounted on an MXM-B (3.0) module, making it a replaceable discrete component.

The most striking architectural difference beyond raw unit counts is the memory model. The UHD P630 uses system-shared memory, where bandwidth is "System Dependent." The Quadro 4000M has dedicated GDDR5 with a fixed 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. This means the Quadro's memory performance is consistent regardless of host system configuration, while the UHD P630's memory performance varies with the CPU and RAM installed. Additionally, the Quadro's 256-bit memory bus is vastly wider than anything the Intel IGP can access, which directly impacts bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

API support also diverges. The UHD P630 supports Vulkan 1.3, a modern cross-platform graphics API, while the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but DirectX support differs: Intel offers 12 (12_1), while NVIDIA offers 12 (11_0). This makes the Intel part more future-proof for modern game engines and compute frameworks that leverage Vulkan or DirectX 12 Ultimate features.

# Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal stark contrasts across nearly every measurable field. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 operates at a base clock of 350 MHz with a boost clock of 1200 MHz, while the Quadro 4000M lists no base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The Intel part's TDP is 15 W, compared to 100 W for the Quadro, reflecting the former's integrated nature versus the latter's discrete module.

Memory specifications differ fundamentally: the UHD P630 has "System Shared" size, type, bus width, and bandwidth, while the Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. Shading units are 192 for Intel versus 336 for NVIDIA; TMUs are 24 versus 56; ROPs are 3 versus 32. Pixel rate is 3.600 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 28.80 GTexel/s versus 26.60 GTexel/s, a rare metric where Intel actually leads. FP32 is 460.8 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS.

The slot width is IGP for Intel and MXM Module for NVIDIA. The bus interface is Ring Bus for Intel and MXM-B (3.0) for NVIDIA. Display outputs are "Motherboard Dependent" for Intel and "Portable Device Dependent" for NVIDIA. The process node is 14 nm+++ (Intel foundry) versus 40 nm (TSMC). The Quadro has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, while the Intel part lists no transistor count or die size. Release dates are May 12, 2020, and February 21, 2011, respectively. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro FX Mobile and its successor is Quadro Kepler-M; the Intel part lists neither.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces a narrow victory for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M. The Quadro scores 5211 against the UHD P630's 5111, a delta of -1.9% from Intel's perspective. This result is notable because it shows that despite being a 2011-era Fermi part with a 40 nm process, the Quadro's dedicated memory and higher shading-unit count (336 versus 192) are enough to edge out a 2020 integrated solution in a compute-oriented workload.

However, the aggregate benchmark picture tells a different story. The UHD P630's average benchmark score of 5370 exceeds the Quadro's 5211, a 3.1% advantage. This discrepancy between the single OpenCL run and the average suggests that the Intel part performs relatively better in other benchmark scenarios not listed in the head-to-head data, likely due to its newer architecture and API support (Vulkan 1.3, DirectX 12_1).

Breaking down the individual performance metrics reinforces the split. The Quadro 4000M dominates in pixel rate (6.650 GPixel/s versus 3.600 GPixel/s) and FP32 (638.4 GFLOPS versus 460.8 GFLOPS), which are classic indicators of raw compute and fill-rate capability. The UHD P630 counters with a higher texture rate (28.80 GTexel/s versus 26.60 GTexel/s), suggesting its TMUs are more efficiently utilized per clock, despite having fewer of them (24 versus 56).

In terms of nearest rivals, the UHD P630 at 5370 average sits 0.2% above the AMD Radeon R7 M445 (5358) and 1% above the NVIDIA GeForce 930A (5317). The Quadro 4000M at 5211 sits 1.1% above the Quadro K3100M (5154) and 1% above the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161), but 0.5% below the GeForce GTX 760M (5236) and 1.4% below the GeForce 940M (5284). These proximity scores show that both GPUs occupy a similar performance tier, with the Intel part having a slight edge in average aggregate performance and the NVIDIA part having a slight edge in the one direct comparison available.

The win count is decisive in one direction: the Quadro 4000M wins 1 head-to-head benchmark, while the UHD P630 wins 0. Yet the percentile ranks are effectively tied (31st versus 30th), and the average scores favor Intel. This suggests that the benchmark suite's composition matters: in OpenCL compute, the Quadro's dedicated memory and higher FP32 win out, but in a broader set of tests, the Intel part's architectural efficiency and modern API support keep it competitive or ahead.